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's 1905 Light Postulate Was Inseparable from the Ether Theory



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 15th 17, 11:38 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default Einstein's 1905 Light Postulate Was Inseparable from the Ether Theory

"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." Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92.. https://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC&hl=en

The tenet Einstein took from the ether theory,

"The speed of light is independent of the speed of the emitting body",

was incompatible with the principle of relativity but Einstein made it compatible by disfiguring space and time. However this tenet was in a biconditional relation with another tenet of the ether theory,

"The wavelength of the emitted light varies with the speed of the emitting body",

and this second tenet was also adopted by special relativity, despite the fact that it was and still is incompatible with the principle of relativity.

Einstein's original formulation of the constant-speed-of-light postulate:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Albert Einstein, ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES, 1905: "...light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."

This independence of the state of motion of the emitting body is only conceivable if the motion of the emitting body is able to change the wavelength of the emitted light. That is, when the emitting body starts moving towards the observer, the wavelength of the emitted light must become shorter (otherwise Einstein's light postulate is false). Accordingly, Einsteinians teach that, for all kinds of waves (light waves included), the wavefronts bunch up (the wavelength decreases) in front of a wave source which starts moving towards the observer:

http://www.einstein-online.info/imag...ler_static.gif (stationary source)

http://www.einstein-online.info/imag...ource_blue.gif (moving source)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4OnBYrbCjY
"The Doppler Effect: what does motion do to waves?"

http://www.fisica.net/relatividade/s...ry_of_time.pdf
Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 3: "Now imagine a source of light at a constant distance from us, such as a star, emitting waves of light at a constant wavelength. Obviously the wavelength of the waves we receive will be the same as the wavelength at which they are emitted (the gravitational field of the galaxy will not be large enough to have a significant effect). Suppose now that the source starts moving toward us. When the source emits the next wave crest it will be nearer to us, so the distance between wave crests will be smaller than when the star was stationary."

For waves other than light waves the moving source does indeed emit shorter wavelength, and the reason is that the speed of the waves relative to the source decreases when the source starts moving. This shortening of the wavelength is measurable in the frame of the source - the wavelength is measured to be λ when the source is stationary, and then it is measured to be λ' (λλ') when the source is moving.

For light waves this is obviously not the case - the speed of the light relative to the source does not change when the source starts moving. In the frame of the source the wavelength is measured to be λ when the source is stationary, and then it is measured to be λ again when the source is moving, which means that the wavefronts DO NOT BUNCH UP in front of the moving source.

Conclusion: Einstein was not justified in taking the first tenet from the ether theory because the second tenet,

"The wavelength of the emitted light varies with the speed of the emitting body",

went with the first and converted special relativity into an inconsistency - the second tenet and the principle of relativity are incompatible.

The light source ("emitting body") moving towards the observer does not emit shorter wavelength. Rather, it emits faster light. If the initially stationary source starts moving towards the stationary observer with speed v, the speed of the light relative to the observer shifts from c to c'=c+v, as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light and in violation of Einstein's relativity.

Pentcho Valev
  #2  
Old April 16th 17, 12:21 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default Einstein's 1905 Light Postulate Was Inseparable from the Ether Theory

Insofar as the constancy/variability of the speed of light is concerned, there are only two consistent theories:

1. The (original) ether theory - incompatible with the principle of relativity.

2. Newton's emission theory of light - compatible with the principle of relativity.

One of the above theories is wrong, the other is true, but both are consistent. Einstein's special relativity is both inconsistent and idiotic (entails the idiotic centaur called "spacetime").

Pentcho Valev
  #3  
Old April 16th 17, 09:17 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default Einstein's 1905 Light Postulate Was Inseparable from the Ether Theory

All consequences of Einstein's 1905 false light postulate are idiotic. Consider this:

"The simplest version of the problem involves a garage, with a front and back door which are open, and a ladder which, when at rest with respect to the garage, is too long to fit inside. We now move the ladder at a high horizontal velocity through the stationary garage. Because of its high velocity, the ladder undergoes the relativistic effect of length contraction, and becomes significantly shorter. As a result, as the ladder passes through the garage, it is, for a time, completely contained inside it. We could, if we liked, simultaneously close both doors for a brief time, to demonstrate that the ladder fits. [...] In a more complicated version of the paradox, we can physically trap the ladder once it is fully inside the garage. This could be done, for instance, by not opening the exit door again after we close it. In the frame of the garage, we assume the exit door is immovable, and so when the ladder hits it, we say that it instantaneously stops. By this time, the entrance door has also closed, and so the ladder is stuck inside the garage. As its relative velocity is now zero, it is not length contracted, and is now longer than the garage; it will have to bend, snap, or explode.." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladder_paradox

This implies that, according to Einstein's relativity, an object with unlimitedly big volume can be gloriously trapped inside a container with unlimitedly small volume, and then an explosion occurs in Einstein's schizophrenic world. Is the explosion spectacular, Einsteinians?

Another idiocy:

"This paradox was originally proposed and solved by Wolfgang Rindler and involved a fast walking man, represented by a rod, falling into a grate. It is assumed that the rod is entirely over the grate in the grate frame of reference before the downward acceleration begins simultaneously and equally applied to each point in the rod. From the perspective of the grate, the rod undergoes a length contraction and fits into the grate. However, from the perspective of the rod, it is the grate undergoing a length contraction, through which it seems the rod is then too long to fall. In fact, the downward acceleration of the rod, which is simultaneous in the grate's frame of reference, is not simultaneous in the rod's frame of reference. In the rod's frame of reference, the bottom of the front of the rod is first accelerated downward (not shown in drawing), and as time goes by, more and more of the rod is subjected to the downward acceleration, until finally the back of the rod is accelerated downward. This results in a bending of the rod in the rod's frame of reference. It should be stressed that, since this bending occurs in the rod's rest frame, it is a true physical distortion of the rod which will cause stresses to occur in the rod." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladder_paradox

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...iation.svg.png

So "this bending occurs in the rod's rest frame, it is a true physical distortion of the rod which will cause stresses to occur in the rod", but "this bending" does not occur in the grate's frame - none of its consequences are observed there.

Einstein's idiocies are incomparable, aren't they, Einsteinians? Time to sing "Divine Einstein", "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity" and "The faster you move, the heavier you get":

http://www.everythingimportant.org/E...neEinstein.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lE-I2I4i00
"No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein not Maxwell, Curie, or Bohr! His fame went glo-bell, he won the Nobel - He should have been given four! No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein, Professor with brains galore! No-one could outshine Professor Einstein! He gave us special relativity, That's always made him a hero to me! No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein, Professor in overdrive!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ
Max Tegmark: "We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Everything is relative, even simultaneity, and soon Einstein's become a de facto physics deity. 'cos we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuxFXHircaI
Michio Kaku, Brian Cox, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Brian Greene, Lisa Randall: "Now, listen carefully. The faster you move, the heavier you get. Light travels at the same speed no matter how you look at it. No matter how I move relative to you light travels at the same speed. No matter who is doing the measurement and no matter what direction you are moving the speed of light is the same. The speed of light is the same no matter what direction or how fast... As you travel faster time slows down. Everything slows down. Everything slows down. Time slows down when you move. Time passes at a different rate. Clocks run slow. It's a monumental shift in how we see the world. It's a beautiful piece of science. It's a beautifully elegant theory. It's a beautiful piece of science. It's a beautiful piece..."

http://www.krugozormagazine.com/main...Enshtein-3.jpg
"The Riverside Church in New York, west portal - upper line, second of right. In 1930, during a stay in New York, Albert Einstein and his wife visited the Riverside Church, too. During the detailed guided tour through the church Einstein was also shown the sculptures at the west portal. He was told that only one of the sculptures there represented a living person, and that was he himself. What Einstein is supposed to have thought in that moment when he heard that information and saw himself immortalized in stone? Contemporaries reported that he looked at the sculpture calmly and thoughtfully."

Pentcho Valev
  #4  
Old April 17th 17, 01:23 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default Einstein's 1905 Light Postulate Was Inseparable from the Ether Theory

John Baez explains how unlimitedly long objects can gloriously be trapped, "in a compressed state", 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 unlimitedly long objects inside unlimitedly short containers implies infinite compressibility and drastically violates the law of conservation of energy. The unlimitedly compressed 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 bending first, as shown at 9:53.

Clearly we have reductio ad absurdum: An absurd bending is required - it does occur in Adam's reference frame but doesn't in Sarah's. Conclusion: The underlying premise, Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate, is false.

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 Simplest Refutation of Einstein's 1905 Light Postulate Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 April 3rd 17 10:25 AM
Einstein's 1905 Light Postulate Is Obviously False Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 February 13th 17 08:18 AM
EINSTEIN'S 1905 FALSE CONSTANT-SPEED-OF-LIGHT POSTULATE Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 7 February 27th 11 08:24 AM
EINSTEINIANA: COPERNICUS WRONG, EINSTEIN 1905 LIGHT POSTULATE TRUE Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 26 November 15th 08 01:03 AM
CARLO ROVELLI ABOUT EINSTEIN 1905 FALSE LIGHT POSTULATE Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 3 March 19th 08 01:38 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:33 PM.


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.