|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
EINSTEIN AGAINST MAXWELL AND NEWTON
The following text is consistent with Einstein's relativity theory but
inconsistent with both Maxwell's electromagnetic theory and Newton's emission theory of light: http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ang/index.html John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)." The following text is consistent with both Maxwell's electromagnetic theory and Newton's emission theory of light but inconsistent with Einstein's relativity theory: Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE SPEED OF LIGHT - TO HAVE INCREASED AS WELL). Conclusion: Either both Maxwell's electromagnetic theory and Newton's emission theory are wrong or Einstein's relativity theory is wrong. Pentcho Valev |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
EINSTEIN AGEINST MAXWEINST AND NEWTEINST in BIG CAPITAL LETTERS
Pentcho Valev wrote:
The following text is consistent with Einstein's relativity theory but inconsistent with both Maxwell's electromagnetic theory and Newton's emission theory of light: http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ang/index.html John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)." The following text is consistent with both Maxwell's electromagnetic theory and Newton's emission theory of light but inconsistent with Einstein's relativity theory: Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE SPEED OF LIGHT - TO HAVE INCREASED AS WELL). Conclusion: Either both Maxwell's electromagnetic theory and Newton's emission theory are wrong or Einstein's relativity theory is wrong. Pentcho Valev |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
EINSTEIN AGAINST MAXWELL AND NEWTON
Einstein's theories of relativity (based upon an extraordinary bungle) are
the biggest nonsense ever. They degraded physics into much worse than mumbo-jumbo, and turned all physicists and most scientists and artists into perfect monsters. These horrid and disastrous creatures form the topmost echelons of the Garg, the Garg, the Abominable Garg now ruling this planet: a mass of millions of brainwashed cowards and spritual deadbeats, protected by institutionalisation and public funding; amounting to a stinking miasma of self-interest, hypocrisy and mediocrity. The politicians/celebs are merely their pawns and puppets. Cheers, Arindam Banerjee. obInsight into the Garg: "Forty thousand clerks ruled Russia." - Tsar Nicholas "Pentcho Valev" wrote in message ... The following text is consistent with Einstein's relativity theory but inconsistent with both Maxwell's electromagnetic theory and Newton's emission theory of light: http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ang/index.html John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)." The following text is consistent with both Maxwell's electromagnetic theory and Newton's emission theory of light but inconsistent with Einstein's relativity theory: Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE SPEED OF LIGHT - TO HAVE INCREASED AS WELL). Conclusion: Either both Maxwell's electromagnetic theory and Newton's emission theory are wrong or Einstein's relativity theory is wrong. Pentcho Valev |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
EINSTEIN AGAINST MAXWELL AND NEWTON
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message ... The following text is consistent with Einstein's relativity theory but inconsistent with both Maxwell's electromagnetic theory and Newton's emission theory of light: http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ang/index.html John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)." No, that is consistent with Maxwell and SR, (but inconsistent with Newton's emission theory). The following text is consistent with both Maxwell's electromagnetic theory and Newton's emission theory of light but inconsistent with Einstein's relativity theory: Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE SPEED OF LIGHT - TO HAVE INCREASED AS WELL). No, that is inconsistent with both Maxwell and SR. Conclusion: Either both Maxwell's electromagnetic theory and Newton's emission theory are wrong or Einstein's relativity theory is wrong. No, the conclusion is either that SR and Maxwell are correct and Newton's emission theory is wrong, or Newton's emission theory is correct and SR and Maxwell are wrong. Given the huge experimental support for both Maxwell's equations and SR, I wouldn't bank on Newton's emission theory being correct and Maxwell being wrong! Pentcho Valev |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
EINSTEIN AGAINST MAXWELL AND NEWTON
On Dec 9, 7:36 pm, PD (Paul Draper) wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
On Dec 9, 12:54 am, Pentcho Valev wrote: The following text is consistent with Einstein's relativity theory but inconsistent with both Maxwell's electromagnetic theory and Newton's emission theory of light: http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ang/index.html John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)." And this is directly confirmed in experiment. However, it is consistent with Maxwell's electromagnetic theory; you got that wrong. The problem, Clever Draper, is whether Maxwell's electromagnetic theory predicts that the speed of light is unaffected/affected by the movements of the observer. Consider this, Clever Draper: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../01/Norton.pdf John Norton: "The difficulty Einstein faced is that Maxwells electrodynamics cannot be an emission theory. One of the most important consequences of the theory is that light in a vacuum always propagates at the same speed, c=186,000 miles per second, WITH RESPECT TO THE ETHER. Its velocity of propagation is unaffected by the velocity of the emitter." Would John Norton have been right if he had written: John Norton's text modified: "The difficulty Einstein faced is that Maxwells electrodynamics cannot be an emission theory. One of the most important consequences of the theory is that light in a vacuum always propagates at the same speed, c=186,000 miles per second, WITH RESPECT TO BOTH THE ETHER AND THE OBSERVER. Its velocity of propagation is unaffected by the velocities of BOTH THE EMITTER AND THE OBSERVER." Again: Clever Draper, is the speed of light unaffected/affected by the movements of the observer according to Maxwell's electromagnetic theory? Pentcho Valev |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
EINSTEIN AGAINST MAXWELL AND NEWTON
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message ... On Dec 9, 7:36 pm, PD (Paul Draper) wrote in sci.physics.relativity: On Dec 9, 12:54 am, Pentcho Valev wrote: The following text is consistent with Einstein's relativity theory but inconsistent with both Maxwell's electromagnetic theory and Newton's emission theory of light: http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ang/index.html John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)." And this is directly confirmed in experiment. However, it is consistent with Maxwell's electromagnetic theory; you got that wrong. The problem, Clever Draper, is whether Maxwell's electromagnetic theory predicts that the speed of light is unaffected/affected by the movements of the observer. Consider this, Clever Draper: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../01/Norton.pdf John Norton: "The difficulty Einstein faced is that Maxwells electrodynamics cannot be an emission theory. One of the most important consequences of the theory is that light in a vacuum always propagates at the same speed, c=186,000 miles per second, WITH RESPECT TO THE ETHER. Its velocity of propagation is unaffected by the velocity of the emitter." This is the exact bungle made. This is where the problem lies. The velocity of propagation IS affected by the velocity of the emitter. In the context of the MMI experiment, to argue otherwise would be to stick the Earth in space following the Aristotleian model. But the Earth moves! Because it moves, the so-called null results are obtained, and they are perfectly valid. As the Earth moves, the equipment also moves (does not remain stuck) and so the light is faster and slower in and against the direction of Earth's motion. I have explained this matter in great detail, over the last several years, in many Usenet postings. It is amazing, how much mischief has been done through oversight of this single, but subtle point. Cheers, Arindam Banerjee. Would John Norton have been right if he had written: John Norton's text modified: "The difficulty Einstein faced is that Maxwells electrodynamics cannot be an emission theory. One of the most important consequences of the theory is that light in a vacuum always propagates at the same speed, c=186,000 miles per second, WITH RESPECT TO BOTH THE ETHER AND THE OBSERVER. Its velocity of propagation is unaffected by the velocities of BOTH THE EMITTER AND THE OBSERVER." Again: Clever Draper, is the speed of light unaffected/affected by the movements of the observer according to Maxwell's electromagnetic theory? Pentcho Valev |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
EINSTEIN AGAINST MAXWELL AND NEWTON
To make matters more clear, the speed of light c is c+v when emitted by an
emitter travelling at speed v with respect to an inertial frame of reference. It is c-v when emitted in the opposite direction of travel. As the emitter is moving at speed v, it covers space vt in the time the light reflects and back. The reflector is also moving at v, so it covers an extra distance of vt/2 for the light to hit it. So in the forward journey the light at higher speed covers an extra distance, while in the return journey the light at lower speed covers a lesser distance. Thus the times match, and no nulls are obtained. Exactly as it should be. Taking these facts into consideration, the nulls that the MMI experiment got, had to happen. This is putting it briefly. I have talked about this in greater detail, and with diagrams, over the past few years in Usenet. Cheers, Arindam Banerjee. "Arindam Banerjee" wrote in message ... "Pentcho Valev" wrote in message ... On Dec 9, 7:36 pm, PD (Paul Draper) wrote in sci.physics.relativity: On Dec 9, 12:54 am, Pentcho Valev wrote: The following text is consistent with Einstein's relativity theory but inconsistent with both Maxwell's electromagnetic theory and Newton's emission theory of light: http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ang/index.html John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)." And this is directly confirmed in experiment. However, it is consistent with Maxwell's electromagnetic theory; you got that wrong. The problem, Clever Draper, is whether Maxwell's electromagnetic theory predicts that the speed of light is unaffected/affected by the movements of the observer. Consider this, Clever Draper: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../01/Norton.pdf John Norton: "The difficulty Einstein faced is that Maxwells electrodynamics cannot be an emission theory. One of the most important consequences of the theory is that light in a vacuum always propagates at the same speed, c=186,000 miles per second, WITH RESPECT TO THE ETHER. Its velocity of propagation is unaffected by the velocity of the emitter." This is the exact bungle made. This is where the problem lies. The velocity of propagation IS affected by the velocity of the emitter. In the context of the MMI experiment, to argue otherwise would be to stick the Earth in space following the Aristotleian model. But the Earth moves! Because it moves, the so-called null results are obtained, and they are perfectly valid. As the Earth moves, the equipment also moves (does not remain stuck) and so the light is faster and slower in and against the direction of Earth's motion. I have explained this matter in great detail, over the last several years, in many Usenet postings. It is amazing, how much mischief has been done through oversight of this single, but subtle point. Cheers, Arindam Banerjee. Would John Norton have been right if he had written: John Norton's text modified: "The difficulty Einstein faced is that Maxwells electrodynamics cannot be an emission theory. One of the most important consequences of the theory is that light in a vacuum always propagates at the same speed, c=186,000 miles per second, WITH RESPECT TO BOTH THE ETHER AND THE OBSERVER. Its velocity of propagation is unaffected by the velocities of BOTH THE EMITTER AND THE OBSERVER." Again: Clever Draper, is the speed of light unaffected/affected by the movements of the observer according to Maxwell's electromagnetic theory? Pentcho Valev |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
EINSTEIN AGAINST MAXWELL AND NEWTON
Needless to add, when the first postulate (about the speed of light being
invariant with respect to the speed of the emitter) of relativity falls flat, gets ground into dust, the WHOLE STRUCTURE OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY BECOMES RIDICULOUS NONSENSE. "Arindam Banerjee" wrote in message ... To make matters more clear, the speed of light c is c+v when emitted by an emitter travelling at speed v with respect to an inertial frame of reference. It is c-v when emitted in the opposite direction of travel. As the emitter is moving at speed v, it covers space vt in the time the light reflects and back. The reflector is also moving at v, so it covers an extra distance of vt/2 for the light to hit it. So in the forward journey the light at higher speed covers an extra distance, while in the return journey the light at lower speed covers a lesser distance. Thus the times match, and no nulls are obtained. Exactly as it should be. Taking these facts into consideration, the nulls that the MMI experiment got, had to happen. This is putting it briefly. I have talked about this in greater detail, and with diagrams, over the past few years in Usenet. Cheers, Arindam Banerjee. "Arindam Banerjee" wrote in message ... "Pentcho Valev" wrote in message ... On Dec 9, 7:36 pm, PD (Paul Draper) wrote in sci.physics.relativity: On Dec 9, 12:54 am, Pentcho Valev wrote: The following text is consistent with Einstein's relativity theory but inconsistent with both Maxwell's electromagnetic theory and Newton's emission theory of light: http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ang/index.html John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)." And this is directly confirmed in experiment. However, it is consistent with Maxwell's electromagnetic theory; you got that wrong. The problem, Clever Draper, is whether Maxwell's electromagnetic theory predicts that the speed of light is unaffected/affected by the movements of the observer. Consider this, Clever Draper: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../01/Norton.pdf John Norton: "The difficulty Einstein faced is that Maxwells electrodynamics cannot be an emission theory. One of the most important consequences of the theory is that light in a vacuum always propagates at the same speed, c=186,000 miles per second, WITH RESPECT TO THE ETHER. Its velocity of propagation is unaffected by the velocity of the emitter." This is the exact bungle made. This is where the problem lies. The velocity of propagation IS affected by the velocity of the emitter. In the context of the MMI experiment, to argue otherwise would be to stick the Earth in space following the Aristotleian model. But the Earth moves! Because it moves, the so-called null results are obtained, and they are perfectly valid. As the Earth moves, the equipment also moves (does not remain stuck) and so the light is faster and slower in and against the direction of Earth's motion. I have explained this matter in great detail, over the last several years, in many Usenet postings. It is amazing, how much mischief has been done through oversight of this single, but subtle point. Cheers, Arindam Banerjee. Would John Norton have been right if he had written: John Norton's text modified: "The difficulty Einstein faced is that Maxwells electrodynamics cannot be an emission theory. One of the most important consequences of the theory is that light in a vacuum always propagates at the same speed, c=186,000 miles per second, WITH RESPECT TO BOTH THE ETHER AND THE OBSERVER. Its velocity of propagation is unaffected by the velocities of BOTH THE EMITTER AND THE OBSERVER." Again: Clever Draper, is the speed of light unaffected/affected by the movements of the observer according to Maxwell's electromagnetic theory? Pentcho Valev |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
EINSTEIN AGAINST MAXWELL AND NEWTON
On Dec 10, 11:23 pm, PD (Paul Draper) wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
On Dec 10, 12:57 am, Pentcho Valev wrote: Again: Clever Draper, is the speed of light unaffected/affected by the movements of the observer according to Maxwell's electromagnetic theory? Unaffected, according to Maxwell's equations, with the extra baggage of the ether dropped and the principle of relativity included. John Norton, an Einsteinian immeasurably cleverer than you, says that, according to Maxwell's electromagnetic theory, the speed of light is (1) constant with respect to the ether and (2) unaffected by the speed of the emitter: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../01/Norton.pdf John Norton: "The difficulty Einstein faced is that Maxwells electrodynamics cannot be an emission theory. One of the most important consequences of the theory is that light in a vacuum always propagates at the same speed, c=186,000 miles per second, WITH RESPECT TO THE ETHER. Its velocity of propagation is unaffected by the velocity of the emitter." If John Norton shared your view that, according to Maxwell's electromagnetic theory, the speed of light is unaffected by the speed of the observer as well, he would have written something like this: "The difficulty Einstein faced is that Maxwells electrodynamics cannot be an emission theory. One of the most important consequences of the theory is that light in a vacuum always propagates at the same speed, c=186,000 miles per second, WITH RESPECT TO BOTH THE ETHER AND THE OBSERVER. Its velocity of propagation is unaffected by the velocities of BOTH THE EMITTER AND THE OBSERVER." In other words, if you are right and Maxwell's electromagnetic theory says that the speed of light is unaffected by the movements of the observer, John Norton's original text can be characterized as suspiciously and unreasonably incomplete. Pentcho Valev |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
BEINSTEIN MEINSTEIN WOOFSTEIN FLATULANCE SWEEPS NATION BUY YOURSHERE
Pentcho Valev wrote:
The following text is consistent with Einstein's relativity theory but inconsistent with both Maxwell's electromagnetic theory and Newton's emission theory of light: http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ang/index.html John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)." The following text is consistent with both Maxwell's electromagnetic theory and Newton's emission theory of light but inconsistent with Einstein's relativity theory: Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE SPEED OF LIGHT - TO HAVE INCREASED AS WELL). Conclusion: Either both Maxwell's electromagnetic theory and Newton's emission theory are wrong or Einstein's relativity theory is wrong. Pentcho Valev |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
PARIS: FROM EINSTEIN THROUGH LORENTZ TO NEWTON | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 0 | October 13th 09 10:15 AM |
HOW EINSTEIN OUTDID NEWTON | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 3 | February 6th 09 05:38 PM |
How Einstein destroyed both Newton and Maxwell | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 10 | October 9th 08 01:50 PM |
BEYOND EINSTEIN: EISENSTAEDT AND NEWTON | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 3 | October 3rd 08 09:38 AM |
FROM NEWTON TO EINSTEIN OR FROM EINSTEIN TO NEWTON? | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 3 | September 1st 07 01:07 PM |