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

Einstein's Nonsensical Axiom That Killed Physics



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 16th 19, 05:49 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default Einstein's Nonsensical Axiom That Killed Physics

"At a time when other scientists believed that the speed of light was variable, Einstein took it as a fixed limit of nature and made it the absolute non-negotiable around which all other variables and parameters enfolded."
https://www.brainpickings.org/2019/0...ng-relativity/

Albert Einstein: "...I introduced the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light, which I borrowed from H. A. Lorentz's theory of the stationary luminiferous [NONEXISTENT] ether..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory

"He opened by explaining how Einstein's theory of relativity is the foundation of every other theory in modern physics and that the assumption that the speed of light is constant is the foundation of that theory. Thus a constant speed of light is embedded in all of modern physics and to propose a varying speed of light (VSL) is worse than swearing! It is like proposing a language without vowels." http://www.thegreatdebate.org.uk/VSLRevPrnt.html

John Stachel: The constancy of the speed of light "seems to be nonsense":

"But this seems to be nonsense. How can it happen that the speed of light relative to an observer cannot be increased or decreased if that observer moves towards or away from a light beam? Einstein states that he wrestled with this problem over a lengthy period of time, to the point of despair." http://www.aip.org/history/exhibits/...relativity.htm

The constancy of the speed of light IS nonsense. The reason why the frequency measured by the moving observer increases https://youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE is because the speed of the light pulses relative to him increases. No other reason is conceivable.

Einstein's constant-speed-of-light nonsense is equivalent to Big Brother's 2+2=5. Mathematics automatically becomes insane after 2+2=5 is introduced - scientists unavoidably get trapped in idiotic "paradoxes". Exactly the same happened to fundamental physics in 1905:

"Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafés in South Kensington or Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL WAS CLEARLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY. All these paradoxes resulted from well known effects such as length contraction, time dilation, or E=mc^2, all basic predictions of special relativity. And all denied the possibility of establishing a well-defined border, common to all observers, capable of containing new quantum gravitational effects." Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light, p. 250 http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Sp.../dp/0738205257

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DafYwspX0AAixYo.jpg

In the next version of physics the original malignancy, Einstein's 1905 nonsensical axiom

"The speed of light is invariable"

will be replaced with the correct axiom

"The wavelength of light is invariable".

I have developed the idea in a series of tweets he https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev
  #2  
Old August 16th 19, 08:04 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default Einstein's Nonsensical Axiom That Killed Physics

In the quotation below Banesh Hoffmann clearly explains that, "without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations" (as was the situation in 1887), the Michelson-Morley experiment is compatible with Newton's variable speed of light, c'=c±v, and incompatible with the constant (independent of the motion of the emitter) speed of light, c'=c, posited by the ether theory and adopted by Einstein:

Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92: "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." https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-It.../dp/0486406768

Wikipedia: Newton's variable speed of light, c'=c ± v, explains the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment:

"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)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory

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

Clearly the variability, as per Newton, of the speed of light was unequivocally proved in 1887, even though Michelson and Morley, as etherists, failed to explicitly draw this conclusion.

OBVIOUSLY variable speed of light:

Stationary light source, moving observer (receiver): http://www.einstein-online.info/imag...ector_blue.gif

The speed of the light pulses as measured by the source is

c = df

where d is the distance between the pulses and f is the frequency measured by the source. The speed of the pulses as measured by the observer is

c'= df' c

where f' f is the frequency measured by the observer.

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
How Einstein Killed Physics Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 1 June 13th 19 09:12 AM
Einstein's 1905 Nonsensical Axiom Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 April 23rd 19 07:19 AM
Einstein's Nonsensical Axiom That Killed Physics Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 April 18th 19 09:15 AM
Fundamental Physics Killed by Einstein's 1905 Axiom Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 1 November 30th 18 11:15 AM
How Einstein Killed Physics Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 1 January 16th 18 09:31 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:51 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.