A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

The Lie That the Speed of Light Is Constant



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 8th 16, 09:30 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default The Lie That the Speed of Light Is Constant

That the speed of light is variable, not constant, is obvious. When the initially stationary observer starts moving towards the light source with speed v, the frequency he measures shifts from f=c/λ to f'=(c+v)/λ. This means that either the speed of the light relative to the observer shifts from c to c'=c+v, or the motion of the observer somehow changes the wavelength of the incoming light - from λ to λ'=λc/(c+v). The latter scenario is absurd - the motion of the observer is obviously unable to change the wavelength of the incoming light.

Conclusion: The speed of light is different to differently moving observers (varies with the speed of the observer), in violation of Einstein's relativity.

Pentcho Valev
  #2  
Old October 9th 16, 12:32 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default The Lie That the Speed of Light Is Constant

In 1887 (prior to FitzGerald and Lorentz advancing the ad hoc length contraction hypothesis) the Michelson-Morley experiment UNEQUIVOCALLY confirmed the variable speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light and refuted the constant (independent of the speed of the light source) speed of light predicted by the ether theory and later adopted by Einstein as his special relativity's second postulate. The result Michelson and Morley expected was calculated on the assumption that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source. The experiment showed a different (null) result, which meant that the assumption was false - the speed of light does depend on the speed of the light source:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory
"Emission theory, also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887. [...] The name most often associated with emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then expect light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed of the distant emitter (c ± v)."

http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also a natural one? Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether. If it was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous."

Pentcho Valev
  #3  
Old October 11th 16, 06:27 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default The Lie That the Speed of Light Is Constant

The lie that the Michelson-Morley experiment confirmed the constancy of the speed of light was devised by Einstein:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...66838A 639EDE
The New York Times, April 19, 1921: "The special relativity arose from the question of whether light had an invariable velocity in free space, he [Einstein] said. The velocity of light could only be measured relative to a body or a co-ordinate system. He sketched a co-ordinate system K to which light had a velocity C. Whether the system was in motion or not was the fundamental principle. This has been developed through the researches of Maxwell and Lorentz, the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light having been based on many of their experiments. But did it hold for only one system? he asked. He gave the example of a street and a vehicle moving on that street. If the velocity of light was C for the street was it also C for the vehicle? If a second co-ordinate system K was introduced, moving with the velocity V, did light have the velocity of C here? When the light traveled the system moved with it, so it would appear that light moved slower and the principle apparently did not hold. Many famous experiments had been made on this point. Michelson showed that relative to the moving co-ordinate system K1, the light traveled with the same velocity as relative to K, which is contrary to the above observation. How could this be reconciled? Professor Einstein asked."

The lie has been universally taught for more than a century. Ten years ago, the only living Einsteinians that used to mention the truth about the Michelson-Morley experiment were John Norton and John Stachel (but they never stopped lying about other things of course):

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues that reveal Einstein's serious consideration of an emission theory of light; and he gave us the crucial insight that Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity. Even today, this point needs emphasis. The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that contradicts the light postulate."

Nowadays clever Einsteinians know the truth and tend to avoid the topic. Silly Einsteinians (99%) teach the lie as enthusiastically as ever:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswi...al-relativity/
Ethan Siegel: "Galileo had stated, back in the early 1600s, that there's no absolute and constant state of rest; no one observer would have a 'privileged' position. But it was also discovered that the speed of light was constant, no matter who the observer was or how they were moving. These two ideas might seem compatible, but Newton's laws of motion couldn't fit them together. It took a new view of the Universe, and Einstein's relativity, to make it work. [...] Albert A. Michelson constructed a series of ultra-sensitive interferometers set up to exploit exactly this fact. As the interferometer rotated into, perpendicular to, and against the Earth's direction of motion, there should have been shifts in the interference pattern produced by the beams of light as they moved through space. But no shift was ever observed; this experiment returned a null result. This was perhaps the most important null result in the history of physics, since it meant that the speed of light was constant to any and all observers."

Ethan Siegel, the Great Teacher in Einstein schizophrenic world:

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithab...se-443x590.jpg

Pentcho Valev
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What does it mean for the speed of light to be constant? Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 3 September 30th 16 06:05 PM
WHY THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS NOT CONSTANT Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 1 October 14th 15 10:56 AM
WHY THE SPEED OF LIGHT CANNOT BE CONSTANT Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 4 August 15th 15 02:42 PM
THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS NOT CONSTANT Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 3 August 11th 15 06:41 PM
THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS NOT A CONSTANT Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 5 February 1st 15 01:55 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.