|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
EINSTEIN WAS WRONG. BACK TO NEWTON
Richard P. Feynman, "QED: The strange theory of light and matter", Princeton University Press, 1985, p. 15: "I want to emphasize that light comes in this form - particles. It is very important to know that light behaves like particles, especially for those of you who have gone to school, where you probably learned something about light behaving like waves. I'm telling you the way it does behave - like particles."
Insofar as its speed is concerned, light does indeed behave like particles. In advancing his second postulate, Einstein should not have taken any "aspect" from the continuous field model of light inherent in the ether theory: http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC "Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann, p.92: "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." http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf...09145525ca.pdf Albert Einstein (1954): "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary physics." Pentcho Valev |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
EINSTEIN WAS WRONG. BACK TO NEWTON
In the real world, the speed of light (relative to the observer) does depend on the speed of the light source, as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light. Unfortunately we all live in Divine Albert's world where the speed of light is, by postulation, independent of the speed of the light source, and space and time are disfigured so as to form an efficient "protecive belt" around the false postulate:
http://bertie.ccsu.edu/naturesci/PhilSci/Lakatos.html "Lakatos distinguished between two parts of a scientific theory: its "hard core" which contains its basic assumptions (or axioms, when set out formally and explicitly), and its "protective belt", a surrounding defensive set of "ad hoc" (produced for the occasion) hypotheses. (...) In Lakatos' model, we have to explicitly take into account the "ad hoc hypotheses" which serve as the protective belt. The protective belt serves to deflect "refuting" propositions from the core assumptions..." http://marxsite.com/LK1.htm Imre Lakatos, Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes: "All scientific research programmes may be characterized by their 'hard core'. The negative heuristic of the programme forbids us to direct the modus tollens at this 'hard core'. Instead, we must use our ingenuity to articulate or even invent 'auxiliary hypotheses', which form a protective belt around this core, and we must redirect the modus tollens to these. It is this protective belt of auxiliary hypotheses which has to bear the brunt of tests and get adjusted and readjusted, or even completely replaced, to defend the thus-hardened core." Pentcho Valev |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
EINSTEIN WAS WRONG. BACK TO NEWTON
Banesh Hoffmann is quite clear: the Michelson-Morley experiment confirms the variable speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light unless there is a protective belt ("contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations") that deflects the refuting experimental evidence from the false constant-speed-of-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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
EINSTEIN WAS WRONG. BACK TO NEWTON
Insane (or extremely dishonest) brainwashers that should leave science immediately:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuxFXHircaI "A musical celebration of E=MC squared and Einstein's theory of relativity. Featuring Michio Kaku, Brian Cox, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Brian Greene and Lisa Randall." Pentcho Valev |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FROM NEWTON TO EINSTEIN OR FROM EINSTEIN TO NEWTON? | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 3 | September 1st 07 01:07 PM |
NEWTON WAS WRONG | ACE | Astronomy Misc | 0 | August 14th 06 09:35 PM |
NEWTON WAS WRONG | ACE | Astronomy Misc | 0 | August 5th 06 04:11 AM |
NEWTON WAS WRONG | ACE | Astronomy Misc | 0 | July 8th 06 09:14 PM |