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

Any Relevant Experiment Proves Variable Speed of Light as per Newton



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 26th 20, 02:05 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,968
Default Any Relevant Experiment Proves Variable Speed of Light as per Newton

Originally ("without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations"), the Michelson-Morley experiment directly proved Newton's variable speed of light and disproved the constant (independent of the motion of the emitter) speed of light posited by the theory of the nonexistent ether and "borrowed" by Einstein in 1905:

"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." Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92 https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-It.../dp/0486406768

"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

"The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that contradicts the light postulate." http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf

Albert Einstein: "I introduced the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light, which I borrowed from H. A. Lorentz's theory of the stationary luminiferous ether..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory

See more he https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev
Ads
  #2  
Old October 26th 20, 11:17 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,968
Default Any Relevant Experiment Proves Variable Speed of Light as per Newton

High priests in the Einstein cult fraudulently teach that the gravitational redshift, as measured in numerous versions of the Pound-Rebka-Snider experiment, gloriously proves gravitational time dilation, the miracle (idiocy) Einstein fabricated in 1911:

Question: "What is the greatest Physics experiment that has ever been done and why is it so good?" Jim Al-Khalili: "For me it was an experiment carried out by two Americans in the early 1950s and regarded as one of the classic tests of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. Their names were Robert Pound and Glen Rebka and they proved that gravity really slows time down." https://www.harriswestminstersixthfo...al-khalili-obe

David Morin: "The equivalence principle has a striking consequence concerning the behavior of clocks in a gravitational field. It implies that higher clocks run faster than lower clocks. If you put a watch on top of a tower, and then stand on the ground, you will see the watch on the tower tick faster than an identical watch on your wrist. When you take the watch down and compare it to the one on your wrist, it will show more time elapsed. [...] This GR time-dilation effect was first measured at Harvard by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They sent gamma rays up a 20m tower and measured the redshift (that is, the decrease in frequency) at the top. This was a notable feat indeed, considering that they were able to measure a frequency shift of gh/c^2 (which is only a few parts in 10^15) to within 1% accuracy." http://www.personal.kent.edu/~fwilli...Relativity.pdf

"A new paper co-authored by U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu measures the gravitational redshift, illustrated by the gravity-induced slowing of a clock and sometimes referred to as gravitational time dilation (though users of that term often conflate two separate phenomena), a measurement that jibes with Einstein and that is 10,000 times more precise than its predecessor." http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...ted-precision/

"Einstein's relativity theory states a clock must tick faster at the top of a mountain than at its foot, due to the effects of gravity. "Our performance means that we can measure the gravitational shift when you raise the clock just two centimetres (0.78 inches) on the Earth's surface," said study co-author Jun Ye." http://www.theguardian.com/science/2...-billion-years

Yet in this case there are cracks in the all-powerful ideology of the Einstein cult:

Albert Einstein Institute: "...you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. [...] The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..." http://www.einstein-online.info/spot...te_dwarfs.html

Banesh Hoffmann (p. 139): "The gravitational red shift does not arise from changes in the intrinsic rates of clocks. It arises from what befalls light signals as they traverse space and time in the presence of gravitation." http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its.../dp/0486406768

The gravitational redshift, as measured in all versions of the Pound-Rebka-Snider experiment, proves that the speed of light falling in gravity varies as per Newton (near Earth's surface the acceleration of falling photons is g = 9.8 m/s^2). This implies that GRAVITATIONAL TIME DILATION DOES NOT EXIST (Einstein's general relativity is nonsense):

R. V. Pound and J. L. Snider, Effect of Gravity on Gamma Radiation: "It is not our purpose here to enter into the many-sided discussion of the relationship between the effect under study and general relativity or energy conservation. It is to be noted that no strictly relativistic concepts are involved and the description of the effect as an "apparent weight" of photons is suggestive. The velocity difference predicted is identical to that which a material object would acquire in free fall for a time equal to the time of flight." http://virgo.lal.in2p3.fr/NPAC/relat...iers/pound.pdf

"To see why a deflection of light would be expected, consider Figure 2-17, which shows a beam of light entering an accelerating compartment. Successive positions of the compartment are shown at equal time intervals. Because the compartment is accelerating, the distance it moves in each time interval increases with time. The path of the beam of light, as observed from inside the compartment, issue therefore a parabola. But according to the equivalence principle, there is no way to distinguish between an accelerating compartment and one with uniform velocity in a uniform gravitational field. We conclude, therefore, that A BEAM OF LIGHT WILL ACCELERATE IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD AS DO OBJECTS WITH REST MASS. For example, near the surface of Earth light will fall with acceleration 9.8 m/s^2." http://web.pdx.edu/~pmoeck/books/Tipler_Llewellyn.pdf

More he https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

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 Speed of Light Is Variable as per Newton Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 August 10th 20 10:03 PM
Variable Speed of Light as per Newton: Proved by Any Relevant Experiment Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 August 6th 20 12:08 AM
Speed of Light: Variable as per Newton Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 December 21st 19 12:03 PM
Variable Speed of Light (Back to Newton) Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 1 November 18th 19 09:16 PM
Doppler Effect Proves Variable Speed of Light Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 1 October 12th 16 02:20 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:44 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2020 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.