|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
EINSTEIN'S GREATEST DISCOVERY
http://www.relativitybook.com/resour...n_gravity.html
Albert Einstein 1911: "If we call the velocity of light at the origin of co-ordinates c0, then the velocity of light c at a place with the gravitation potential phi will be given by the relation c=c0(1+phi/ c^2)." This was just plagiarism of Newton's emission theory of light - the relation is based on the assumption that photons and cannonballs accelerate identically in a gravitational field. In 1915 Einstein found it profitable to "outdo" Newton and declared that the speed of photons is even more variable than the speed of cannonballs: http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm "Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German. It predated the full formal development of general relativity by about four years. You can find an English translation of this paper in the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity' beginning on page 99; you will find in section 3 of that paper Einstein's derivation of the variable speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is: c'=c0(1+phi/c^2) where phi is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light co is measured......You can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from the full theory of general relativity in the weak field approximation....For the 1955 results but not in coordinates see page 93, eqn (6.28): c(r)=[1+2phi(r)/c^2]c. Namely the 1955 approximation shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in 1911." So Einstein made his greatest discovery: Light emitted by a massive celestial body NEVER moves at c=300000km/s through field-free space where the gravitational potential is constant but different from the potential at the point of emission. Rather, the speed of light is ALWAYS lower than c=300000km/s. Pentcho Valev |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
EINSTEIN'S GREATEST DISCOVERY
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/companion.pdf
John Norton: "Einstein could not see how to formulate a fully relativistic electrodynamics merely using his new device of field transformations. So he considered the possibility of modifying Maxwell’s electrodynamics in order to bring it into accord with an emission theory of light, such as Newton had originally conceived. There was some inevitability in these attempts, as long as he held to classical (Galilean) kinematics. Imagine that some emitter sends out a light beam at c. According to this kinematics, an observer who moves past at v in the opposite direction, will see the emitter moving at v and the light emitted at c+v. This last fact is the defining characteristic of an emission theory of light: the velocity of the emitter is added vectorially to the velocity of light emitted. Einstein ran into numerous difficulties in his explorations of an emission theory. The principle difficulty, however, was this: if the emission theory was to be formulated as a field theory in which light is fully described as a propagating wave, then a light wave must somehow encode within it the velocity of its emitter, so that the theory could assign the correct velocity of propagation to each wave. No such encoding seemed possible, however, since experience showed that light waves were fully characterized simply by their intensity, color and polarization." Was "the principle difficulty" just spurious? The variation of the speed of light predicted by the emission theory (c'=c+v) is expressed as a variation of the frequency, in accordance with the formula: (frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength) So, if c'=c+v is correct, light waves remain "fully characterized simply by their intensity, color and polarization". The difference is in the interpretation: 1. If Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate (c'=c) is correct, then, as the observer starts moving towards the light source, the frequency he measures increases and since the speed of the light is to remain constant (here Einsteinians start singing "Divine Einstein", "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity" and in the end go into convulsions), the formula says that the observer should miraculously procrusteanize the wavelength of the coming 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)." http://www.quora.com/How-does-partic...ht-is-constant Clint Law, M.S. in physics, experimentalist: "Red-shift is not an alteration of the speed of light, but the frequency of the light. (...) A thought experiment that may help: Imagine creating some ripples in a lake, let's say from a dropped rock. You, the observer, are standing a fixed distance from the source. Some time after the rock is dropped, the first wave will reach your location. Then the next few ripples will hit you, and you can measure the frequency of the wave (the rate of pulses per unit time). Now, imagine that you are moving away from the dropped rock. But, you are still exactly the same distance away from the rock when the first wave hits (i.e. you must have started closer to the rock than in the first example). The time it took for the waves to get to you will be exactly the same (because the waves propagated at a fixed speed). But, and here's the big deal, the wave fronts will be spaced farther apart (in time), because you are moving in the same direction. So, the bottom line is that the speed of the wave is the same, but the (apparent) frequency is changed." 2. If the equation c'=c+v is correct, then, as the observer starts moving towards the light source, the frequency and the speed of light increase while the wavelength remains constant (this is exactly what happens to all other waves): http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/roger/PHY.../lecture18.pdf Roger Barlow: "Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer is moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/(lambda) waves pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/(lambda). So f'=(c +v)/(lambda)." http://www-physics.ucsd.edu/students.../lecture16.pdf Convention we will choose: u = velocity of observer or source v = velocity of wave Moving Observer Observer approaching: f'=(1/T')=(v+u)/(lambda) Observer receding: f'=(1/T')=(v-u)/(lambda) http://www.expo-db.be/ExposPrecedent...%20Doppler.pdf 6. Source immobile - Observateur en mouvement La distance entre les crêtes, la longueur d'onde lambda ne change pas. Mais la vitesse des crêtes par rapport à l'observateur change ! L'observateur se rapproche de la source f' = V'/(lambda) f' = f (1 + Vo/V) L'observateur s'éloigne de la source f' = f (1 - Vo/V) http://www.eng.uwi.tt/depts/elec/sta...relativity.pdf The Invalidation of a Sacred Principle of Modern Physics Stephan J.G. Gift "For a stationary observer O, the stationary light source S emits light at speed c, wavelength Lo, and frequency Fo given by Fo=c/Lo. If the observer moves toward S at speed v, then again based on classical analysis, the speed of light relative to the moving observer is (c + v) and not c as required by Einstein's law of light propagation. Hence the observer intercepts wave-fronts of light at a frequency fA, which is higher than Fo, as is observed, and is given by fA = (c+v)/Lo Fo. (...) In light of this elementary result invalidating STR, it is difficult to understand why this invalid theory has been (and continues to be) accepted for the past 100 years." Pentcho Valev |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
EINSTEIN'S GREATEST DISCOVERY
http://rockpile.phys.virginia.edu/mod04/mod34.pdf
Paul Fendley: "An experiment to test this idea was done in the early '60s by Pound and Rebka in a tower 20 feet from where my office was as a graduate student. First consider light shined downward in a freely falling elevator of height h. Inside the elevator, we're a happy inertial frame. We say it takes time t=h/c to hit the bottom. We also say that there's no Doppler shift of the frequency of the light. But how does this look from the ground? Say the light beam was emitted just as the elevator was released into free fall (i.e. at zero velocity). By the time the light hits the bottom of the elevator, it is accelerated to some velocity v. Since light travels so fast, the elevator isn't traveling very fast when the light hits the bottom, so v is pretty small, and we can use non-relativistic formulas for this (but not the light!). We thus simply have v=gt=gh/c. Now let's see what this does to the frequency of the light. We know that even without special relativity, observers moving at different velocities measure different frequencies. (This is the reason the pitch of an ambulance changes as it passes you – it doesn't change if you're on the ambulance). This is called the Doppler shift, and for small relative velocity v it is easy to show that the frequency shifts from f to f(1+v/c) (it goes up heading toward you, down away from you). There are relativistic corrections, but these are negligible here. Now back to our experiment. In the freely-falling elevator, we're inertial and measure the same frequency f at top and bottom. Now to the earth frame. When the light beam is emitted, the elevator is at rest, so earth and elevator agree the frequency is f. But when it hits the bottom, the elevator is moving at velocity v=gh/c with respect to the earth, so earth and elevator must measure different frequencies. In the elevator, we know that the frequency is still f, so on the ground the frequency f' = f(1 + v/c) = f(1 + gh/c^2) On the earth, we interpret this as meaning that not only does gravity bend light, but changes its frequency as well." If the frequency shifts from f to f'=f(1+v/c)=f(1+gh/c^2), then, in accordance with the formula (frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength) either the speed of light shifts from c to c'=c+v=c(1+gh/c^2), as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light, or the wavelength shifts from L to L'=L/(1+v/c)=L/(1+gh/c^2). Which alternative is more reasonable? Pentcho Valev |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
EINSTEIN'S GREATEST DISCOVERY
Joking apart, Einstein did make an important discovery at the end of
his life (in 1954): Deductivism allows one, by advancing a single false assumption (Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate), to kill a whole science: http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/ind...ecture_id=3576 John Stachel: "Einstein discussed the other side of the particle-field dualism - get rid of fields and just have particles." EINSTEIN'S 1954 DISCOVERY: "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary physics." John Stachel's comment: "If I go down, everything goes down, ha ha, hm, ha ha ha." Clues to EINSTEIN'S 1954 DISCOVERY: http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0101/0101109.pdf "The two first articles (January and March) establish clearly a discontinuous structure of matter and light. The standard look of Einstein's SR is, on the contrary, essentially based on the continuous conception of the field." 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." http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its.../dp/0486406768 "Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann "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." http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm Bryan Wallace: "There is a popular argument that the world's oldest profession is sexual prostitution. I think that it is far more likely that the oldest profession is scientific prostitution, and that it is still alive and well, and thriving in the 20th century. I suspect that long before sex had any commercial value, the prehistoric shamans used their primitive knowledge to acquire status, wealth, and political power, in much the same way as the dominant scientific and religious politicians of our time do. (...) Because many of the dominant theories of our time do not follow the rules of science, they should more properly be labeled pseudoscience. The people who tend to believe more in theories than in the scientific method of testing theories, and who ignore the evidence against the theories they believe in, should be considered pseudoscientists and not true scientists. To the extent that the professed beliefs are based on the desire for status, wealth, or political reasons, these people are scientific prostitutes. (...) Einstein's special relativity theory with his second postulate that the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin that holds the whole range of modern physics theories together. Shatter this postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate farce! (...) The speed of light is c+v. (...) I expect that the scientists of the future will consider the dominant abstract physics theories of our time in much the same light as we now consider the Medieval theories of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin or that the Earth stands still and the Universe moves around it." [Bryan Wallace wrote "The Farce of Physics" on his deathbed hence some imperfections in the text!] Pentcho Valev |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
EINSTEIN'S GREATEST DISCOVERY
Why did experiments fail to refute Einstein's 1905 false constant-
speed-of-light postulate? Imre Lakatos explains: http://bertie.ccsu.edu/naturesci/PhilSci/Lakatos.html "Lakatos distinguished between two parts of a scientific theory: its "hard core" which contains its basic assumptions (or axioms, when set out formally and explicitly), and its "protective belt", a surrounding defensive set of "ad hoc" (produced for the occasion) hypotheses. (...) In Lakatos' model, we have to explicitly take into account the "ad hoc hypotheses" which serve as the protective belt. The protective belt serves to deflect "refuting" propositions from the core assumptions..." In the absence of any protective belt, the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment UNEQUIVOCALLY refutes the hard core of Einstein's special relativity and confirms the hard core of Newton's emission theory of light. The first building block of the protective belt, the ad hoc length-contraction hypothesis advanced by Fitzgerald and Lorentz, reversed the situation: the Michelson-Morley experiment started to support the constancy of the speed of light (independence of the speed of the source). Pentcho Valev |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Halley's Greatest Discovery | G=EMC^2 Glazier[_1_] | Misc | 3 | October 11th 08 10:12 PM |
Halley's Greatest Discovery | Double-A[_2_] | Misc | 0 | October 10th 08 07:29 PM |
Halley's Greatest Discovery | G=EMC^2 Glazier[_1_] | Misc | 0 | October 9th 08 06:21 PM |
New discovery undermines Einstein's theory of relativity | [email protected][_1_] | Astronomy Misc | 2 | October 6th 07 07:17 PM |
Article-'The greatest discovery of all time' | Jason H. | SETI | 2 | October 15th 05 09:27 PM |