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

Banesh Hoffmann Disproves Einstein's Relativity



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 16th 19, 01:09 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,085
Default Banesh Hoffmann Disproves Einstein's Relativity

Banesh Hoffmann (6 September 1906 – 5 August 1986) was a British mathematician and physicist known for his association with Albert Einstein. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banesh_Hoffmann

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 adopted 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

The speed of light is variable, as posited by Newton's theory:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D04HlVoW0AArbso.png

Pentcho Valev
Ads
  #2  
Old March 16th 19, 06:52 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,085
Default Banesh Hoffmann Disproves Einstein's Relativity

"Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafés in South Kensington or Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL WAS CLEARLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY. All these paradoxes resulted from well known effects such as length contraction, time dilation, or E=mc^2, all basic predictions of special relativity. And all denied the possibility of establishing a well-defined border, common to all observers, capable of containing new quantum gravitational effects." Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light, p. 250 http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Sp.../dp/0738205257

What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime... [...] The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..." https://www.edge.org/response-detail/25477

Joao Magueijo: "So we have broken fundamentally this Lorentz invariance which equates space and time..." https://youtu.be/kbHBBtsrU1g?t=1431

"You want to go back to a notion of space-time that preceded the 20th century, and it wants to ignore the essential lessons about space-time that the 20th century has taught us." Joao Magueijo: "Yes, that's right. So it's nouveau-Newtonian." At 53:29 he http://pirsa.org/displayFlash.php?id=16060116

Special relativity is a deductive theory so if it is "the root of all the evil", if space-time is to be broken, retired etc, then an axiom (postulate) must be false. Logic does not allow the combination "true postulates, evil theory". It is highly unlikely that the principle of relativity (the first postulate) is false, so the only reasonable suggestion is:

Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate is false.

The problem is that the truth - variable speed of light, as per Newton - will completely destroy fundamental physics. Things will have to restart from scratch:

"The whole of physics is predicated on the constancy of the speed of light," Joao Magueijo, a cosmologist at Imperial College London and pioneer of the theory of variable light speed, told Motherboard. "So we [Niayesh Afshordi and Joao Magueijo] had to find ways to change the speed of light without wrecking the whole thing too much." https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/a...t-speed-slowed

Awful dilemma, isn't it? Afshordi and Magueijo are honest enough but still they beat about the bush a bit, so in this tweet

https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev/st...89439147859970

I tried to define the dilemma as clearly as possible. The tweet received a like from... Niayesh Afshordi!

Do we need the truth, even though it will completely destroy fundamental physics? Yes we do:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dsi1me8WsAANyer.jpg

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
Any Relevant Experiment Disproves Einstein's Relativity Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 1 February 10th 19 08:04 PM
Einstein Shift Disproves Relativity Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 August 8th 17 12:34 PM
Brian Greene Inadvertently Disproves Einstein's Relativity Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 1 August 5th 17 09:41 AM
How the Doppler Effect Disproves Einstein's Relativity Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 February 18th 17 01:52 PM
Pento Valev vs. Banesh Hoffmann Koobee Wublee Astronomy Misc 0 December 18th 11 06:40 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:33 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.