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 WRESTLING WITH AN UNSOLVABLE PROBLEM



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 25th 12, 04:35 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default EINSTEIN WRESTLING WITH AN UNSOLVABLE PROBLEM

http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/...relativity.htm
John Stachel: "But here he ran into the most blatant-seeming contradiction, which I mentioned earlier when first discussing the two principles. As noted then, the Maxwell-Lorentz equations imply that there exists (at least) one inertial frame in which the speed of light is a constant regardless of the motion of the light source. Einstein's version of the relativity principle (minus the ether) requires that, if this is true for one inertial frame, it must be true for all inertial frames. 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."

So "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"?

Answer: It simply CANNOT happen. The speed of light "is simply increased by the observer speed, as we can see by jumping into the observer's frame of reference":

http://www.usna.edu/Users/physics/mu...plerEffect.pdf
Carl Mungan: "Consider the case where the observer moves toward the source. In this case, the observer is rushing head-long into the wavefronts... (....) In fact, the wave speed is simply increased by the observer speed, as we can see by jumping into the observer's frame of reference."

http://www.cmmp.ucl.ac.uk/~ahh/teach...24n/lect19.pdf
Tony Harker, University College London: "If the observer moves with a speed Vo away from the source (...), then in a time t the number of waves which reach the observer are those in a distance (c-Vo)t, so the number of waves observed is (c-Vo)t/lambda, giving an observed frequency f'=f((c-Vo)/c) [and an observed speed c'=c-Vo] when the observer is moving away from the source at a speed Vo."

Pentcho Valev

  #2  
Old May 26th 12, 07:50 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default EINSTEIN WRESTLING WITH AN UNSOLVABLE PROBLEM

Brainwashing in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world:

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-mc2-S.../dp/0306817586
Why Does E=mc2?: (And Why Should We Care?), Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw, pp. 32-33: "Maxwell's equations predict that light always moves with a velocity of 299,792,458 meters per second, and there is no place to insert the velocity of the source of the light or the velocity of the receiver. The equations really do seem to assert that the speed of light will always be measured to be the same, no matter how fast the source and the receiver of the light are moving relative to each other. It seems that Maxwell's equations are telling us that the speed of light is a constant of nature. This really is a bizarre assertion, so let us spend a little more time exploring its meaning. Imagine that light is shining out from a flashlight. According to common sense, if we run fast enough we could in principle catch up with the front of the beam of light as it advances forward. Common sense might even suggest that we could jog alongside the front of the beam if we managed to run at the speed of light. But if we are to follow Maxwell's equations to the letter, then no matter how fast we run, the beam still recedes away from us at a speed of 299,792,458 meters per second. If it did not, the speed of light would be different for the person running compared to the person holding the flashlight, contradicting Michelson and Morley's experimental results and our assertion that the speed of light is a constant of nature, always the same number, irrespective of the motion of the source or the observer."

The truth:

1. According to Maxwell's theory, the speed of light, as measured by the observer (receiver), varies with the speed of the observer.

2. The Michelson-Morley experiment is compatible with Newton's emission theory of light which predicts that the speed of light (as measured by the observer) varies with both the speed of the light source and the speed of the observer.

Pentcho Valev

  #3  
Old May 26th 12, 09:14 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default EINSTEIN WRESTLING WITH AN UNSOLVABLE PROBLEM

Leonard Susskind: Maxwell's theory predicted that the speed of light DOES NOT depend on the speed of the observer measuring it, the Michelson-Morley experiment showed that the speed of light DOES NOT depend on the speed of the observer measuring it, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity:

http://www.lecture-notes.co.uk/sussk...al-relativity/
Leonard Susskind: "One of the predictions of Maxwell's equations is that the velocity of electromagnetic waves, or light, is always measured to have the same value, regardless of the frame in which it is measured. (...) So, in Galilean relativity, we have c'=c-v and the speed of light in the moving frame should be slower than in the stationary frame, directly contradicting Maxwell. Scientists before Einstein thought that Galilean relativity was correct and so supposed that there had to exist a special, universal frame (called the aether) in which Maxwell's equations would be correct. However, over time and many experiments (including Michelson-Morley) it was shown that the speed of light did not depend on the velocity of the observer measuring it, so that c'=c."

John Norton: Maxwell's theory predicted that the speed of light DOES depend on the speed of the observer measuring it, the Michelson-Morley experiment showed that the speed of light DOES depend on the speed of the observer measuring it, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/Chasing.pdf
JOHN NORTON: "Finally, in an apparent eagerness to provide a seamless account, an author may end up misstating the physics. Kaku (2004, p. 45) relates how Einstein found that his aversion to frozen light was vindicated when he later learned Maxwell's theory." MICHIO KAKU: "When Einstein finally learned Maxwell's equations, he could answer the question that was continually on his mind. As he suspected, he found that there were no solutions of Maxwell's equations in which light was frozen in time. But then he discovered more. To his surprise, he found that in Maxwell's theory, light beams always traveled at the same velocity, no matter how fast you moved." JOHN NORTON AGAIN: "This is supposedly what Einstein learned as a student at the Zurich Polytechnic, where he completed his studies in 1900, well before the formulation of the special theory of relativity. Yet the results described are precisely what is not to be found in the ether based Maxwell theory Einstein would then have learned. That theory allows light to slow and be frozen in the frame of reference of a sufficiently rapidly moving observer."

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."

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
THE ALBERT EINSTEIN INSTITUTE REFUTES ALBERT EINSTEIN Tonico Astronomy Misc 0 April 1st 12 01:21 PM
Next Einstein Giovanni Amelino-Camelia against Original Einstein(Divine Albert) Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 October 25th 11 01:00 AM
THE WRESTLING THAT KILLED PHYSICS Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 August 8th 08 02:48 AM
Einstein was an atheist. ACTUALLY EINSTEIN WAS AN IDIOT 46erjoe Misc 964 March 10th 07 07:10 AM
OT - The World Wrestling Federation addresses global warming! Tim Killian Amateur Astronomy 4 January 30th 05 06:37 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:17 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.