If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. 


Thread Tools  Display Modes 
#1




Einstein's Relativity Disproved in Advance (in 1887)
Banesh Hoffmann's text below implies two things:
1. In 1887 the MichelsonMorley experiment UNEQUIVOCALLY proved Newton's variable speed of light and disproved the constant (independent of the motion of the emitter) speed of light. 2. The experiment can only be made compatible with the constant speed of light if ad hoc fudge factors ("contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations") are introduced. 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 MichelsonMorley 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." https://www.amazon.com/RelativityIt.../dp/0486406768 The same implications can be drawn from this text: "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 Michelsonâ€“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 Â± v)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory In the next version of fundamental physics Einstein's 1905 false, even nonsensical axiom "The speed of light is constant" will be replaced with the correct 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 
Ads 
#2




Einstein's Relativity Disproved in Advance (in 1887)
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 MichelsonMorley 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 MichelsonMorley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that contradicts the light postulate." http://philsciarchive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf
Norton and Stachel understandably try to vindicate Einstein (the author of the hoax) but they are honest enough to admit that Einsteinians ("later writers") are liars. Indeed, the lie that the MichelsonMorley experiment has proved the constancy of the speed of light is taught "almost universally": Edward Witten on modern physics https://youtu.be/fnzLpyDsn3M?t=77 "The conclusion of the MichelsonMorley experiment was that the speed of light was a constant c in any inertial frame. Why is this result so surprising? First, it invalidates the Galilean coordinate transformation. Note that with the frames as defined in the previous section, if light is travelling in the x' direction in frame O' with velocity c, then its speed in the O frame is, by the Galilean transform, c+v, not c as measured. This invalidates two thousand years of understanding of the nature of time and space. The only comparable discovery is the discovery that the earth isn't flat! The Michelson Morley experiment has inevitably brought about a profound change in our understanding of the world." http://www.berkeleyscience.com/relativity.htm Ethan Siegel: "The speed of light doesn't change when you boost your light source. Imagine throwing a ball as fast as you can. Depending on what sport you're playing, you might get all the way up to 100 miles per hour (~45 meters/second) using your handandarm alone. Now, imagine you're on a train (or in a plane) moving incredibly quickly: 300 miles per hour (~134 m/s). If you throw the ball from the train, moving in the same direction, how fast does the ball move? You simply add the speeds up: 400 miles per hour, and that's your answer. Now, imagine that instead of throwing a ball, you emit a beam of light instead. Add the speed of the light to the speed of the train... and you get an answer that's completely wrong. Really, you do! This was the central idea of Einstein's theory of special relativity, but it wasn't Einstein who made this experimental discovery; it was Albert Michelson, who's pioneering work in the 1880s demonstrated that this was the case." https://www.forbes.com/sites/startsw...talsurprises/ Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, Chapter 2: "The special theory of relativity was very successful in explaining that the speed of light appears the same to all observers (as shown by the MichelsonMorley experiment)...." http://www.amazon.com/BriefHistory.../dp/0553380168 Brian Cox, p. 91: "...Maxwell's brilliant synthesis of the experimental results of Faraday and others strongly suggested that the speed of light should be the same for all observers. This conclusion was supported by the experimental result of Michelson and Morley, and taken at face value by Einstein.." http://www.amazon.com/WhyDoesmc2S.../dp/0306817586 Joe Wolfe: "At this stage, many of my students say things like "The invariance of the speed of light among observers is impossible" or "I can't understand it". Well, it's not impossible. It's even more than possible, it is true. This is something that has been extensively measured, and many refinements to the Michelson and Morley experiment, and complementary experiments have confirmed this invariance to very great precision. As to understanding it, there isn't really much to understand. However surprising and weird it may be, it is the case. It's the law in our universe. The fact of the invariance of c doesn't take much understanding." https://newt.phys.unsw.edu.au/einste...eird_logic.htm Neil deGrasse Tyson: "Beginning in 1905, investigations into the behavior of light got positively spooky. That year, Einstein published his special theory of relativity, in which he ratcheted up M & M's null result to an audacious level. The speed of light in empty space, he declared, is a universal constant, no matter the speed of the lightemitting source or the speed of the person doing the measuring." https://lightnovelsonl.com/novelser...2544/chapter5 Pentcho Valev 
#3




Einstein's Relativity Disproved in Advance (in 1887)
Einstein informs the gullible world that the MichelsonMorley experiment has proved CONSTANT speed of light (actually in 1887 the experiment unequivocally proved Newton's VARIABLE speed of light):
The New York Times, April 19, 1921: "The special relativity arose from the question of whether light had an invariable velocity in free space, he [Einstein] said. The velocity of light could only be measured relative to a body or a coordinate system. He sketched a coordinate system K to which light had a velocity C. Whether the system was in motion or not was the fundamental principle. This has been developed through the researches of Maxwell and Lorentz, the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light having been based on many of their experiments. But did it hold for only one system? he asked. He gave the example of a street and a vehicle moving on that street. If the velocity of light was C for the street was it also C for the vehicle? If a second coordinate system K was introduced, moving with the velocity V, did light have the velocity of C here? When the light traveled the system moved with it, so it would appear that light moved slower and the principle apparently did not hold. Many famous experiments had been made on this point. Michelson showed that relative to the moving coordinate system K1, the light traveled with the same velocity as relative to K, which is contrary to the above observation. How could this be reconciled? Professor Einstein asked." http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...66838A 639EDE Pentcho Valev 
Thread Tools  
Display Modes  


Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Einstein's Relativity Disproved  Einsteinians Say It Was Gloriously Confirmed  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  3  December 28th 17 05:42 PM 
How Pound and Rebka Disproved Einstein's Relativity  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  1  September 30th 17 09:26 AM 
How Michelson and Morley Disproved Einstein's Relativity in Advance  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  1  September 30th 17 08:38 AM 
Constancy of the Speed of Light: Disproved in 1887  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  1  August 26th 17 03:21 PM 
General Relativity Disproved in the Weak Field Limit; Why Testing It Further?  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  1  August 10th 17 07:27 AM 