WHY EINSTEIN RETAINED THE CONSTANT SPEED OF LIGHT

http://bartleby.net/173/7.html
Albert Einstein: "In view of this dilemma there appears to be nothing else for it than to abandon either the principle of relativity or the simple law of the propagation of light in vacuo. Those of you who have carefully followed the preceding discussion are almost sure to expect that we should retain the principle of relativity, which appeals so convincingly to the intellect because it is so natural and simple. The law of the propagation of light in vacuo would then have to be replaced by a more complicated law conformable to the principle of relativity. The development of theoretical physics shows, however, that we cannot pursue this course. The epoch-making theoretical investigations of H. A. Lorentz on the electrodynamical and optical phenomena connected with moving bodies show that experience in this domain leads conclusively to a theory of electromagnetic phenomena, of which the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo is a necessary consequence."

That is, Einstein would replace the constant speed of light with the variable speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light (which is "conformable to the principle of relativity") if it were not for some "experience" which, according to Lorentz, "leads conclusively to a theory of electromagnetic phenomena, of which the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo is a necessary consequence". The "experience" is called the Michelson-Morley experiment. Originally (before Lorentz was able to do anything) the experiment showed that the speed of light varies as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light:

https://www.physics.umn.edu/classes/...slides-SR1.pdf
University of Minnesota (Slides entitled: "History of special relativity I: debunking the myth of the Michelson-Morley experiment"): "The nail in the coffin of the myth [of the Michelson-Morley experiment]: Simple explanation of the result of Michelson and Morley is to assume that the velocity of light does depend on the velocity of the source. But that is the exact opposite of the light postulate!"

http://www.philoscience.unibe.ch/doc...S07/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "These efforts were long misled by an exaggeration of the importance of one experiment, the Michelson-Morley experiment, even though Einstein later had trouble recalling if he even knew of the experiment prior to his 1905 paper. This one experiment, in isolation, has little force. Its null result happened to be fully compatible with Newton's own emission theory of light. Located in the context of late 19th century electrodynamics when ether-based, wave theories of light predominated, however, it presented a serious problem that exercised the greatest theoretician of the day."

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."

http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann, 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."

Pentcho Valev

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."

Einstein honest, "later writers" almost all liars? The latter yes, the former no. In 1919 Albert the Plagiarist became Divine Albert and since then boldly taught any lie he could imagine. Examples:

1. The principle of constancy of the speed of light is based on many of Maxwell's and Lorentz' "experiments".

2. The Michelson-Morley experiment has shown that "relative to the moving co-ordinate system K1, the light traveled with the same velocity as relative to K".

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...66838A 639EDE
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 co-ordinate system. He sketched a co-ordinate 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 co-ordinate 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 co-ordinate 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."

Pentcho Valev

Einstein had no problems with assuming that the speed of light (relative to the observer) is independent of the speed of the light source - that was a common belief at the time. Yet this assumption, combined with the principle of relativity, leads to the conclusion that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the observer as well, which is an obvious absurdity:

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."

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einstein...eird_logic.htm
Professor 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 Morely 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: what requires understanding are its consequences, and how it can be integrated into what we already know."

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic..._of_light.html
Don Koks, Steve Carlip, Philip Gibbs: "To state that the speed of light is independent of the velocity of the observer is very counterintuitive. Some people even refuse to accept this as a logically consistent possibility, but in 1905 Einstein was able to show that it is perfectly consistent if you are prepared to give up assumptions about the absolute nature of space and time."

How do clever Einsteinians deal with the absurd tenet of Einstein's special relativity ("the speed of light relative to the observer is independent of the speed of the observer")? A couple of years ago John Norton, one of the cleverest Einsteinians, left Einsteiniana's sinking ship and issued the following valedictory testament:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/Chasing.pdf
John Norton: "At the age of sixteen, Einstein imagined chasing after a beam of light. He later recalled that the thought experiment had played a memorable role in his development of special relativity. Famous as it is, it has proven difficult to understand just how the thought experiment delivers its results. It fails to generate problems for an ether-based electrodynamics. I propose that Einstein's canonical statement of the thought experiment from his 1946 "Autobiographical Notes," makes most sense not as an argument against ether-based electrodynamics, but as an argument against "emission" theories of light."

On close inspection it is easy to see that Norton's real purpose is different from the one stated above - he just wants to inform the (thinking) world that the speed of light (relative to the observer) CANNOT be independent of the speed of the observer:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/Chasing.pdf
John Norton: "Einstein's thought is simple. If he were somehow to chase after that propagating waveform at c, he would catch the wave and move with it, much as a surfer catches a water wave. He would find a frozen light wave.. But that possibility, Einstein declares, is untenable for three reasons; and in that failure he finds the germ of the special theory of relativity. What remains unclear is just how Einstein's three reasons establish that the frozen waveform is untenable and thereby create difficulties for the nineteenth century account of light. His target, presumably, is the ether state of rest around which Maxwell's electrodynamics is constructed. Yet an ether theorist can readily defeat each of the three reasons Einstein lists."

Pentcho Valev

Albert Einstein Institute also informs the thinking world that the speed of light relative to the observer CANNOT be independent of the speed of the observer but... there is no thinking world (Einsteinians have destroyed it):

http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler
Albert Einstein Institute: "Here is an animation of the receiver moving towards the source:

http://www.einstein-online.info/imag...ler_static.gif

http://www.einstein-online.info/imag...ector_blue.gif

(...) By observing the two indicator lights, you can see for yourself that, once more, there is a blue-shift - the pulse frequency measured at the receiver is somewhat higher than the frequency with which the pulses are sent out. This time, the distances between subsequent pulses are not affected, but still there is a frequency shift: As the receiver moves towards each pulse, the time until pulse and receiver meet up is shortened. In this particular animation, which has the receiver moving towards the source at one third the speed of the pulses themselves, four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses."

The speed of the light pulses relative to the stationary receiver is:

c = d/t

where d is the distance between subsequent pulses and t is the time until pulse and (stationary) receiver meet up. For the moving receiver, "the time until pulse and receiver meet up is shortened". This means that the speed of the pulses relative to the moving receiver is:

c' = d/t' = c + v

where t' is the time until pulse and moving receiver meet up (tt') and v is the speed of the receiver relative to the source.

If "four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses", the speed of the pulses relative to the moving receiver is:

c' = (4/3)c

http://gjl038.g.j.pic.centerblog.net/3fea2faf.jpg

Pentcho Valev