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

The Origin of Einstein's False Constancy of the Speed of Light



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 13th 19, 08:50 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,083
Default The Origin of Einstein's False Constancy of the Speed of Light

Einstein "borrowed" his false constant-speed-of-light postulate from the ether theory:

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

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

Banesh Hoffmann clearly explains that, "without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations" (as was the case in 1887), the Michelson-Morley experiment proves Newton's variable speed of light (c'=c+v) and disproves the constant (independent of the speed of the emitter) speed of light (c'=c) posited by the ether theory and "borrowed" by Einstein. The fact is so obvious that even Wikipedia admits it:

"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 following revelations are staggering:

John Norton: "To it, we should add that the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment was unhelpful and possibly counter-productive in Einstein's investigations of an emission theory of light, for the null result is predicted by an emission theory." http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1228...n_Discover.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." http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf

So we have an experiment that in 1887 (prior to FitzGerald and Lorentz advancing the ad hoc length contraction hypothesis) unequivocally proved the variable speed of light (c'=c+v) posited by Newton's theory and accordingly disproved the constant (independent of the speed of the emitter) speed of light (c'=c) posited by the ether theory and later adopted by Einstein as his 1905 second ("light") postulate. Yet the brainwashed world believes that the experiment has proved constancy of the speed of light. Who is to blame for the brainwashing? According to Stachel and Norton, Einstein is innocent in this case - he was honest and taught that the Michelson-Morley experiment had confirmed the principle of relativity, not the constancy of the speed of light. In contrast, today's Einsteinians ("later writers") are liars and teach that the experiment has proved constancy of the speed of light.

Stachel and Norton are right about today's Einsteinians, but did Einstein really teach the truth? Of course not. He was the author of the hoax:

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." http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...66838A 639EDE

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DcyNghbX0AAOsLO.jpg

Pentcho Valev
Ads
  #2  
Old March 14th 19, 08:12 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,083
Default The Origin of Einstein's False Constancy of the Speed of Light

Perhaps the most idiotic argument in the history of science:

Premise 1: The laws of physics are the same in every inertial frame (principle of relativity).

Premise 2: The speed of light is a law of physics - Einstein said so.

http://media.agonybooth.com/wp-conte...peed-limit.jpg

Conclusion: The speed of light is the same in every inertial frame.The Galilean transformation, predicting variable speed of light, contradicts the principle of relativity.

Albert Einstein, On the Principle of Relativity: "After all, when a beam of light travels with a stated velocity relative to one observer, then - so it seems - a second observer who is himself traveling in the direction of the propagation of the light beam should find the light beam propagating at a lesser velocity than the first observer does. If this were really true, then the law of light propagation in vacuum would not be the same for two observers who are in relative, uniform motion to each other - in contradiction to the principle of relativity stated above. This is where the theory of relativity comes in. This theory shows that the law of constancy of light propagation in vacuum can be satisfied simultaneously for two observers, in relative motion to each other, such that the same beam of light shows the same velocity to both of them." https://einsteinpapers.press.princet.../vol6-trans/16

Albert Einstein: "If a ray of light be sent along the embankment, we see from the above that the tip of the ray will be transmitted with the velocity c relative to the embankment. Now let us suppose that our railway carriage is again travelling along the railway lines with the velocity v, and that its direction is the same as that of the ray of light, but its velocity of course much less. Let us inquire about the velocity of propagation of the ray of light relative to the carriage. It is obvious that we can here apply the consideration of the previous section, since the ray of light plays the part of the man walking along relatively to the carriage. The velocity W of the man relative to the embankment is here replaced by the velocity of light relative to the embankment. w is the required velocity of light with respect to the carriage, and we have w = c - v. The velocity of propagation of a ray of light relative to the carriage thus comes out smaller than c. But this result comes into conflict with the principle of relativity set forth in Section V." http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html

Richard Feynman: "Suppose we are riding in a car that is going at a speed u, and light from the rear is going past the car with speed c. Differentiating the first equation in (15.2) gives dx'/dt=dx/dt-u, which means that according to the Galilean transformation the apparent speed of the passing light, as we measure it in the car, should not be c but should be c-u. For instance, if the car is going 100,000 mi/sec, and the light is going 186,000 mi/sec, then apparently the light going past the car should go 86,000 mi/sec. In any case, by measuring the speed of the light going past the car (if the Galilean transformation is correct for light), one could determine the speed of the car. A number of experiments based on this general idea were performed to determine the velocity of the earth, but they all failed - they gave no velocity at all." http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_15.html

Leonard Susskind: "The principle of relativity is that the laws of physics are the same in every reference frame. That principle existed before Einstein. Einstein added one law of physics - the law of physics is that the speed of light is the speed of light, c. If you combine the two things together - that the laws of physics are the same in every reference frame, and that it's a law of physics that light moves with certain velocity, you come to the conclusion that light must move with the same velocity in every reference frame. Why? Because the principle of relativity says that the laws of physics are the same in every reference frame, and Einstein announced that it is a law of physics that light moves with a certain velocity." https://youtu.be/toGH5BdgRZ4?t=626

Pentcho Valev
  #3  
Old March 14th 19, 09:24 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,083
Default The Origin of Einstein's False Constancy of the Speed of Light

Two educational lies without which Einstein's relativity would be long forgotten:

1. Maxwell's 19th century theory showed that the speed of light is the same for all observers.

2. The Michelson-Morley experiment showed that the speed of light is the same for all observers.

Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw, Why Does E=mc2?: (And Why Should We Care?), 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/Why-Does-mc2-S.../dp/0306817586

Brian Greene, The Elegant Universe, p. 19: "If she fires the laser toward you - and if you had the appropriate measuring equipment - you would find that the speed of approach of the photons in the beam is 670 million miles per hour. But what if you run away, as you did when faced with the prospect of playing catch with a hand grenade? What speed will you now measure for the approaching photons? To make things more compelling, imagine that you can hitch a ride on the starship Enterprise and zip away from your friend at, say, 100 million miles per hour. Following the reasoning based on the traditional Newtonian worldview, since you are now speeding away, you would expect to measure a slower speed for the oncoming photons. Specifically, you would expect to find them approaching you at (670 million miles per hour - 100 million miles per hour =) 570 million miles per hour. Mounting evidence from a variety of experiments dating back as far as the 1880s, as well as careful analysis and interpretation of Maxwell's electromagnetic theory of light, slowly convinced the scientific community that, in fact, this is not what you will see. Even though you are retreating, you will still measure the speed of the approaching photons as 670 million miles per hour, not a bit less. Although at first it sounds completely ridiculous, unlike what happens if one runs from an oncoming baseball, grenade, or avalanche, the speed of approaching photons is always 670 million miles per hour. The same is true if you run toward oncoming photons or chase after them - their speed of approach or recession is completely unchanged; they still appear to travel at 670 million miles per hour. Regardless of relative motion between the source of photons and the observer, the speed of light is always the same." http://cfile205.uf.daum.net/attach/1...4EE5A30219CDD4

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 Michelson-Morley experiment) and in describing what happens when things move at speeds close to the speed of light." http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-.../dp/0553380168

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
Einstein's False Constant-Speed-of-Light Postulate Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 December 1st 18 07:22 PM
Science Predicated on the False Constancy of the Speed of Light Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 1 January 9th 18 12:15 PM
Why Einstein Did Not Abandon the Constancy of the Speed of Light Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 September 25th 17 06:43 PM
VERIFYING EINSTEIN'S CONSTANCY OF THE SPEED OF LIGHT Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 July 15th 15 07:34 AM
EINSTEIN'S 1905 FALSE CONSTANT-SPEED-OF-LIGHT POSTULATE Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 7 February 27th 11 08:24 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:06 AM.


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.