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

False Founding Principles in Physics



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 21st 16, 11:01 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,521
Default False Founding Principles in Physics

http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/09/05/p...odern-physics/
Neil Turok: "It's the ultimate catastrophe: that theoretical physics has led to this crazy situation where the physicists are utterly confused and seem not to have any predictions at all."

http://www.edge.org/response-detail/23857
Steve Giddings: "What really keeps me awake at night (...) is that we face a crisis within the deepest foundations of physics. The only way out seems to involve profound revision of fundamental physical principles."

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/the-ul...hing-1.3490322
Neil Turok: "It looks like the founding principles of modern physics - quantum theory and relativity - have played out and they have not given us the answers we need. And so we have to go back and question those founding principles..."

Suggesting that the founding principles of physics are false without singling out any of them is an old tradition in Einstein schizophrenic world. Einstein himself was somewhat more honest when, in 1954, he did refer to the false principle, even though in confusing terms:

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."

How did Einstein base his theory on the field concept? By adopting the false constancy of the speed of light as defined in the ether field theory:

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0101/0101109.pdf
"The two first articles (January and March) establish clearly a discontinuous structure of matter and light. The standard look of Einstein's SR is, on the contrary, essentially based on the continuous conception of the field.."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/genius/
"And then, in June, Einstein completes special relativity, which adds a twist to the story: Einstein's March paper treated light as particles, but special relativity sees light as a continuous field of waves."

http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
Relativity and Its Roots, 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."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory
Albert Einstein: "...it is impossible to base a theory of the transformation laws of space and time on the principle of relativity alone. As we know, this is connected with the relativity of the concepts of "simultaneity" and "shape of moving bodies." To fill this gap, 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..."

It is extremely easy to show that the speed of light cannot be constant - it varies with the speed of the observer, in violation of Einstein's relativity:

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/concepts/gr.pdf
David Tong: "The rocket has height h. It starts from rest, and moves with constant acceleration g. Light emitted from the top of the rocket is received below. By this time, the rocket is travelling at speed v=gt=gh/c. This gives rise to the Doppler effect. (Neglecting relativistic effects). f'=f(1+v/c)=f(1+gh/c^2), where f' is received frequency and f is emitted frequency."

Since f=c/λ (λ is the wavelength), we have

f' = f(1+v/c) = (c+v)/λ

where c'=c+v is the speed of the light relative to the receiver (the bottom of the rocket).

Clearly the speed of light relative to the observer (receiver) varies with the speed of the observer, in violation of Einstein's relativity. Actually any correct interpretation of the Doppler effect (moving observer) proves, explicitly or implicitly, this variation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE
"Doppler effect - when an observer moves towards a stationary source. ...the velocity of the wave relative to the observer is faster than that when it is still."

http://physics.ucsd.edu/students/cou...cs2c/Waves.pdf
"Doppler effect (...) Let u be speed of source or observer (...) Doppler Shift: Moving Observer. Shift in frequency only, wavelength does not change. Speed observed = v+u (...) Observed frequency shift f'=f(1±u/v)"

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...ml/node41.html
"Thus, the moving observer sees a wave possessing the same wavelength (...) but a different frequency (...) to that seen by the stationary observer."

http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php
"vO is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + vO. (...) The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time."

http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp...9_doppler.html
"Let's say you, the observer, now move toward the source with velocity vO. You encounter more waves per unit time than you did before. Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed: v'=v+vO. The frequency of the waves you detect is higher, and is given by: f'=v'/λ=(v+vO)/λ."

Pentcho Valev
Ads
  #2  
Old March 23rd 16, 05:17 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,521
Default False Founding Principles in Physics

It is experimentally proved that the speed of light is not constant:

http://rt.com/news/225879-light-speed-slow-photons/
"Physicists manage to slow down light inside vacuum (...) ...even now the light is no longer in the mask, it's just the propagating in free space - the speed is still slow. (...) "This finding shows unambiguously that the propagation of light can be slowed below the commonly accepted figure of 299,792,458 metres per second, even when travelling in air or vacuum," co-author Romero explains in the University of Glasgow press release."

http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2015.../1191422035480
"The speed of light is a limit, not a constant - that's what researchers in Glasgow, Scotland, say. A group of them just proved that light can be slowed down, permanently."

http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story...ut-touching-it
"Although the maximum speed of light is a cosmological constant - made famous by Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity and E=mc^2 - it can, in fact, be slowed down: that's what optics do."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxJ7_tbbIsg
"Glasgow researchers slow the speed of light"

http://www.businesswire.com/news/hom...ng-Light-Twist
"Researchers at the University of Ottawa observed that twisted light in a vacuum travels slower than the universal physical constant established as the speed of light by Einstein's theory of relativity. (...) If it's possible to slow the speed of light by altering its structure, it may also be possible to speed up light. The researchers are now planning to use FROG to measure other types of structured light that their calculations have predicted may travel around 1 femtosecond faster than the speed of light in a vacuum.."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/faster-t...peed-of-light/
"For generations, physicists believed there is nothing faster than light moving through a vacuum -- a speed of 186,000 miles per second. But in an experiment in Princeton, N.J., physicists sent a pulse of laser light through cesium vapor so quickly that it left the chamber before it had even finished entering. The pulse traveled 310 times the distance it would have covered if the chamber had contained a vacuum. Researchers say it is the most convincing demonstration yet that the speed of light -- supposedly an ironclad rule of nature -- can be pushed beyond known boundaries, at least under certain laboratory circumstances. (...) The results of the work by Wang, Alexander Kuzmich and Arthur Dogariu were published in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature."

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../406277a0.html
Nature 406, 277-279 (20 July 2000): "...a light pulse propagating through the atomic vapour cell appears at the exit side so much earlier than if it had propagated the same distance in a vacuum that the peak of the pulse appears to leave the cell before entering it."

Einsteinians react to inconstant speed of light observations:

http://resetvenezia.it/wp-content/up...nd-300x201.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
EINSTEINIANA: ETHICAL PRINCIPLES Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 September 26th 08 11:01 AM
sci.astro.amateur founding date? Matthew Ota Amateur Astronomy 26 March 24th 06 04:07 AM
The core principles oriel36 UK Astronomy 0 December 28th 05 02:06 PM
To my Father the Devil. On the Art of War; On Physics as War.On Genetics, Judaism and the scientific secrets of the Kabbala / Freemasonry/ Egyptian Mystery cultism. Moses and the Arc of the Covenant. E=MC squaredetc. On False Accounting. On the m DH UK Astronomy 0 March 9th 05 11:06 AM
Proper principles. [email protected] UK Astronomy 1 March 6th 05 04:36 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:13 AM.


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.