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

Einsteinians Slowly Admit Variable Speed of Light



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 1st 17, 02:29 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default Einsteinians Slowly Admit Variable Speed of Light

Stuart Clark: "Cosmic uncertainty: Is the speed of light really constant? The speed of light in a vacuum is the ultimate cosmic speed limit. Just getting close to it causes problems: the weird distortions of Einstein's relativity kick in, so time slows down, lengths go up, masses balloon and everything you thought was fixed changes. Only things that have no mass in the first place can reach light speed - photons of light being the classic example.. Absolutely nothing can exceed this cosmic max. We have known about the special nature of light speed since an experiment by US physicists Albert Michelson and Edward Morley in the 1880s. They set two beams of light racing off, one parallel and one at right angles to the direction of Earth's rotation, assuming the different relative motions would mean the light beams would travel at different speeds - only to find the speed was always the same." https://www.newscientist.com/article...ally-constant/

False start, Stuart Clark. In 1887 (prior to FitzGerald and Lorentz advancing the ad hoc length contraction hypothesis) the Michelson-Morley experiment was compatible with the variable speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light and incompatible 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 1905 second ("light") postulate:

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://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf
"The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."

Then Lorentz and FitzGerald introduced, ad hoc, length contraction and other miracles and the Michelson-Morley experiment became compatible with the constant and incompatible with the variable speed of light. Nowadays Einsteinians almost universally teach this fabrication, even though the fraud is blatant. Yet Banesh Hoffmann confirms that, "without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations", the Michelson-Morley experiment is compatible with the variable and incompatible with the constant speed of light:

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
  #2  
Old March 2nd 17, 01:01 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default Einsteinians Slowly Admit Variable Speed of Light

Einsteinians introduce variable speed of light in a harmless way (we all live in Einstein's schizophrenic world, don't we):

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/p.../0305457v3.pdf
Joao Magueijo: "In sharp contrast, the constancy of the speed of light has remain sacred, and the term "heresy" is occasionally used in relation to "varying speed of light theories". The reason is clear: the constancy of c, unlike the constancy of G or e, is the pillar of special relativity and thus of modern physics. Varying c theories are expected to cause much more structural damage to physics formalism than other varying constant theories."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolog...ht-discovered/
"But the researchers said they spent a lot of time working on a theory that wouldn't destabilise our understanding of physics. "The whole of physics is predicated on the constancy of the speed of light," Joao Magueijo told Motherboard. "So we had to find ways to change the speed of light without wrecking the whole thing too much."

Pentcho Valev
  #3  
Old March 3rd 17, 10:29 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default Einsteinians Slowly Admit Variable Speed of Light

Einsteinians inadvertently refute Einstein's relativity by demonstrating that the speed of light varies with the speed of the observer:

Consider a light source emitting a series of pulses equally distanced from one another. A stationary observer (receiver) measures the frequency of the pulses:

http://www.einstein-online.info/imag...ler_static.gif

The observer starts moving with constant speed towards the light source - the measured frequency increases:

http://www.einstein-online.info/imag...ector_blue.gif

The following quotation is relevant:

http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler
Albert Einstein Institute: "By observing the two indicator lights, you can see for yourself that, once more, there is a blue-shift - the pulse frequency measured at the receiver is somewhat higher than the frequency with which the pulses are sent out. This time, the distances between subsequent pulses are not affected, but still there is a frequency shift: As the receiver moves towards each pulse, the time until pulse and receiver meet up is shortened. In this particular animation, which has the receiver moving towards the source at one third the speed of the pulses themselves, four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses."

Since "four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses", the speed of the pulses relative to the moving observer (receiver) is (4/3)c. Einsteinians clearly see this but, if asked, would say that the speed of the pulses relative to the moving observer is c, not (4/3)c.

Similarly, Fermilab physicist Dr. Ricardo Eusebi demonstrates how both the speed of light (relative to the observer) and the frequency vary with the speed of the observer but then explains that only the frequency varies (the speed of the light doesn't):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=EVzUyE2oD1w
"Light frequency is relative to the observer. The velocity is not though. The velocity is the same in all the reference frames."

In Einstein's schizophrenic world, doublethink is reinforced by the old principle of Ignatius of Loyola which is universally obeyed:

Ignatius of Loyola: "That we may be altogether of the same mind and in conformity with the Church herself, if she shall have defined anything to be black which appears to our eyes to be white, we ought in like manner to pronounce it to be black."

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
EINSTEINIANS INADVERTENTLY TEACH VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 3 June 22nd 14 11:50 PM
VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT OR VARIABLE WAVELENGTH? Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 3 June 2nd 12 06:14 PM
VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT OR VARIABLE WAVELENGTH? Tonico Astronomy Misc 0 May 31st 12 04:36 PM
Bureaucratic refusal to admit mistakes re light speed [email protected] Astronomy Misc 4 November 14th 06 05:17 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:20 AM.


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.