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

The Simplest Experimental Falsification of Einstein's Relativity



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 22nd 16, 07:56 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default The Simplest Experimental Falsification of Einstein's Relativity

The initially stationary observer starts moving towards the light source, with speed v. Two hypotheses are conceivable:

Hypothesis 1 (Newton's emission theory): The speed of the light relative to the observer shifts from c to c'=c+v. Accordingly, the frequency measured by the observer shifts from f=c/λ to f'=c'/λ.

Hypothesis 2 (Einstein's special relativity): The speed of the light relative to the observer does not shift. Accordingly, the frequency measured by the observer does not shift either.

Needless to say, the experiment (measurement of the Doppler effect) confirms Hypothesis 1 and refutes Hypothesis 2:

http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/roger/PHY.../lecture18.pdf
"Moving Observer. Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer is moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/λ waves pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/λ. So f'=(c+v)/λ."

http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp...9_doppler.html
"Let's say you, the observer, now move toward the source with velocity vO. You encounter more waves per unit time than you did before. Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed: v'=v+vO. The frequency of the waves you detect is higher, and is given by: f'=v'/λ=(v+vO)/λ."

Pentcho Valev
  #2  
Old June 22nd 16, 08:56 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default The Simplest Experimental Falsification of Einstein's Relativity

Another simple experimental falsification of Einstein's relativity. Consider the following two hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: Length contraction is absurd. Accordingly, the Michelson-Morley experiment confirms the variable speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light, and refutes the constant (independent of the speed of the emitter) speed of light predicted by the ether theory and adopted by Einstein as his 1905 second postulate:

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."

Hypothesis 2: Length contraction is real. Accordingly, the Michelson-Morley experiment confirms the constant (independent of the speed of the emitter) speed of light predicted by the ether theory and adopted by Einstein as his 1905 second postulate, and refutes the variable speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light.

So length contraction is absurd or real? It is ABSURD (Hypothesis 1 is the correct one) - length contraction implies that unlimitedly long objects can be trapped inside unlimitedly short containers:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...barn_pole.html
John Baez: "These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in the barn. [...] So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. [...] If it does not explode under the strain and it is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be trapped in a compressed state inside the barn."

See, at 7:12 in the video below, how the train is trapped "in a compressed state" inside the tunnel:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xrqj88zQZJg
"Einstein's Relativistic Train in a Tunnel Paradox: Special Relativity"

It is not difficult to realize that trapping long objects inside short containers drastically violates the law of conservation of energy. The trapped object, in trying to restore its original volume ("spring back to its natural shape"), would produce an enormous amount of work the energy for which comes from nowhere.

At 9:01 in the above video Sarah sees the train falling through the hole, and in order to save Einstein's relativity, the authors of the video inform the gullible world that Adam as well sees the train falling through the hole. However Adam can only see this if the train undergoes an absurd disintegration first, as shown at 9:53.

Clearly we have reductio ad absurdum which, in its own right (independently of the experimental falsification), refutes Einstein's relativity: An absurd disintegration is required - Adam sees it, Sarah doesn't. Conclusion: The underlying premise, Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate, is false.

Pentcho Valev
  #3  
Old June 25th 16, 11:15 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default The Simplest Experimental Falsification of Einstein's Relativity

A simple experimental falsification of Einstein's general relativity. Consider the following two hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: The speed of light falling towards the source of gravity varies like the speed of ordinary falling bodies (in the gravitational field of the Earth the acceleration of falling photons is g). Accordingly, the Pound-Rebka experiment confirms Newton's emission theory of light and refutes Einstein's relativity:

http://www.wfu.edu/~brehme/space.htm
Professor Robert W. Brehme: "Light falls in a gravitational field just as do material objects."

http://courses.physics.illinois.edu/...ctures/l13.pdf
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object. ITS SPEED INCREASES AS IT IS FALLING. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as it falls to earth. Because of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass, WE SHOULD OBSERVE THE SAME EFFECT FOR LIGHT. So lets shine a light beam from the top of a very tall building. If we can measure the frequency shift as the light beam descends the building, we should be able to discern how gravity affects a falling light beam. This was done by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They shone a light from the top of the Jefferson tower at Harvard and measured the frequency shift. The frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the theoretical prediction."

http://www.einstein-online.info/spot...t_white_dwarfs
Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. (...) The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..."

Hypothesis 2: The speed of light falling towards the source of gravity DECREASES (in the gravitational field of the Earth the acceleration of falling photons is NEGATIVE, -2g). Accordingly, the Pound-Rebka experiment confirms Einstein's relativity and refutes Newton's emission theory of light.

Clearly, Hypothesis 2 is absurd. The acceleration "-2g" was a fudge factor Einstein and his mathematical friends had to introduce in order to make the "theory" compatible with gravitational time dilation, a miraculous effect Einstein had fabricated in 1911.

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
ANOTHER SIMPLEST DISPROOF OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 0 July 31st 15 11:42 AM
THE SIMPLEST REFUTATION OF SPECIAL RELATIVITY Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 August 11th 13 05:45 PM
EXPERIMENTAL CONFIRMATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 31 September 30th 10 08:21 AM
EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY? Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 0 July 12th 08 10:06 AM
EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY? Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 3 July 10th 08 09:27 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:15 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.