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

Arbitrarily Varying Lengths: the Universal Fudge Factor in Einstein's Relativity



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 20th 20, 11:19 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default Arbitrarily Varying Lengths: the Universal Fudge Factor in Einstein's Relativity

The speed of light, as measured by the observer/receiver, either depends on the speed of the emitter (Newton's theory) or is independent (ether theory and Einstein's relativity). Where is the truth? The answer was given, implicitly at the time, in 1887. Dependence proved directly:

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: "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

Note that, "without recourse to contracting lengths", the constant (independent of the speed of the emitter) speed of light is disproved by the Michelson-Morley experiment while Newton's variable speed of light is proved. The arbitrary introduction of "contracting lengths" reverses the situation: now Newton's variable speed of light is disproved while the constant speed of light, posited by the ether theory and later adopted by Einstein as his 1905 second postulate, is gloriously proved.

This blatant fraud marked the beginning of the post-truth era in science, long time ago. In the end physics was converted into an insane ideology:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DcGLizjWkAAv4hG.jpg

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

"The speed of light is constant"

will be replaced with the correct and easily justifiable axiom

"For a given emitter, the wavelength of light is constant".

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

Pentcho Valev
  #2  
Old June 20th 20, 09:06 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default Arbitrarily Varying Lengths: the Universal Fudge Factor inEinstein's Relativity

A crucial hoax: The moving observer sees the wavelength shortened (so that the speed of light can gloriously remain constant):

Kip Thorne: "If you move toward the [light] source, you see the wavelength shortened but you don't see the speed changed" https://youtu.be/mvdlN4H4T54?t=296

John Norton: "Every sound or light wave has a particular frequency and wavelength. In sound, they determine the pitch; in light they determine the color. 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.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ved/index.html

If the speed of light is constant as per Einstein, the motion of the observer must idiotically change the wavelength of the incoming light (otherwise the speed of light is not constant). Sometimes Einsteinians extend the idiocy beyond light - here it is applied to sound waves:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EaMAgUTX...png&name=small

Martin White teaches that the motion of the observer miraculously changes the wavelength (so that the speed of the wave relative to the observer can remain constant). Physicists know that this is an idiocy, at least for sound waves, but don't protest. Typical of insane ideology:

Professor Martin White, UC Berkeley: "...the sound waves have a fixed wavelength (distance between two crests or two troughs) only if you're not moving relative to the source of the sound. If you are moving away from the source (or equivalently it is receding from you) then each crest will take a little longer to reach you, and so you'll perceive a longer wavelength. Similarly if you're approaching the source, then you'll be meeting each crest a little earlier, and so you'll perceive a shorter wavelength. [...] The same principle applies for light as well as for sound. In detail the amount of shift depends a little differently on the speed, since we have to do the calculation in the context of special relativity. But in general it's just the same: if you're approaching a light source you see shorter wavelengths (a blue-shift), while if you're moving away you see longer wavelengths (a red-shift)." http://w.astro.berkeley.edu/~mwhite/...plershift.html

See more he https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

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
Idiotic Fudge Factor in Einstein's General Relativity Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 1 March 12th 19 03:23 PM
Procrusteanized Length: the Universal Fudge Factor in Einstein Cult Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 0 February 8th 19 01:12 PM
Arbitrarily Variable Length: the Universal Fudge Factor in Einstein's Relativity Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 1 December 5th 18 06:17 PM
Einstein's General Relativity: Fudge Factors and Fudge Equations Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 3 March 10th 17 10:23 AM
VARYING LENGTHS SAVE EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 0 April 5th 14 12:06 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:22 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.