A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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.

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's 1905 Nonsense Was Fatal to Physics



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 4th 18, 10:59 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,380
Default Einstein's 1905 Nonsense Was Fatal to Physics

Initially Einstein had a problem with the invariability of the speed of light - it is obviously nonsense:

John Stachel: "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." http://www.aip.org/history/exhibits/...relativity.htm

The speed of light relative to an observer (receiver) IS increased if that observer moves towards a light beam:

Stationary emitter; moving receiver: http://www.einstein-online.info/imag...ector_blue.gif

(Website: http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler.html)

The speed of the light pulses relative to the emitter is

c = df

where d is the distance between the pulses and f is the frequency measured by the emitter. The speed of the pulses relative to the receiver is

c'= df' c

where f' f is the frequency measured by the receiver.

In the end Einstein found it profitable to introduce the nonsense. Then, for more than a century, Einsteinians have been procrusteanizing physics upon the bed of the nonsensical invariability. In particular, space and time were tragically vandalized:

Peter Galison: "Only by criticizing the foundational notions of time and space could one bring the pieces of the theory - that the laws of physics were the same in all constantly moving frames; that light traveled at the same speed regardless of its source - into harmony." https://www.aip.org/history/exhibits...teins-time.htm

Nowadays fundamental physics is much more insane than, say, flat-earth myths. For instance, physicists gloriously jump, within a minute of their experienced time, sixty million years ahead in the future, and trap unlimitedly long objects, in a compressed state, inside unlimitedly short containers:

Thibault Damour: "The paradigm of the special relativistic upheaval of the usual concept of time is the twin paradox. Let us emphasize that this striking example of time dilation proves that time travel (towards the future) is possible. As a gedanken experiment (if we neglect practicalities such as the technology needed for reaching velocities comparable to the velocity of light, the cost of the fuel and the capacity of the traveller to sustain high accelerations), it shows that a sentient being can jump, "within a minute" (of his experienced time) arbitrarily far in the future, say sixty million years ahead, and see, and be part of, what (will) happen then on Earth. This is a clear way of realizing that the future "already exists" (as we can experience it "in a minute")." http://www.bourbaphy.fr/damourtemps.pdf

"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." http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...barn_pole.html

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DcMHjnHWkAEXB8f.jpg

Pentcho Valev
Ads
  #2  
Old December 4th 18, 02:20 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,380
Default Einstein's 1905 Nonsense Was Fatal to Physics

Invariable speed of light: the nonsense that killed physics:

Brian Greene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Irlq3TFr8Q

The speed of light either depends on the speed of the emitter (Newton) or is independent (Einstein's 1905 postulate). Who was right? The answer was given, implicitly, in 1887. Dependence proved directly. Independence, "without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations", disproved:

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

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
Fundamental Physics Killed by Einstein's 1905 Axiom Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 1 November 30th 18 10:15 AM
Fatal Nonsense: Constancy of the Speed of Light Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 0 June 27th 18 09:00 AM
Einstein's Constant-Speed-of-Light Nonsense That Killed Physics Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 February 25th 18 07:47 AM
Einstein's Method: Explaining Nonsense in Terms of More Nonsense Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 3 April 30th 16 01:15 PM
EINSTEIN 1918 CONTRADICTS EINSTEIN 1905 Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 July 27th 14 09:45 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2019 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.