A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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 Birth of the Constant-Speed-of-Light Nonsense



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 27th 20, 01:00 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default The Birth of the Constant-Speed-of-Light Nonsense

"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

So in 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment was compatible with c'=c±v, Newton's variable speed of light. Accordingly, in the absence of fudge factors ("without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations"), the experiment was incompatible with c'=c, the constant speed of light posited by the ether theory and later adopted by Einstein as his 1905 second postulate:

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

Theoreticians could honestly have admitted that the Michelson-Morley experiment had proved Newton's variable speed of light and left it at that. They found it much more profitable to unscrupulously distort reality until the experiment "proved" what they wanted it to prove:

Henri Poincaré: "Lorentz could have accounted for the facts by supposing that the velocity of light is greater in the direction of the earth's motion than in the perpendicular direction. He preferred to admit that the velocity is the same in the two directions, but that bodies are smaller in the former than in the latter." http://www.marxists.org/reference/su...r/poincare.htm

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

Pentcho Valev
  #2  
Old August 27th 20, 11:22 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default The Birth of the Constant-Speed-of-Light Nonsense

Einstein's two postulates sounded perfectly reasonable in 1905. The principle of relativity was fashionable (at least Poincaré firmly believed in it) while the second postulate had been "borrowed" from the dominant 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

So scientists like Poincaré had to accept Einstein's 1905 postulates. But then, if you accept the premises and obey logic, you cannot oppose conclusions deduced from the premises, even if they sound idiotic. The only option for you is doublethink - a state of mind defined by Orwell in his "1984". That was Poincaré's tragedy:

Olivier Darrigol, The Mystery of the Einstein-Poincaré Connection: "It is clear from the context that Poincaré meant here to apply the postulate [of constancy of the speed of light] only in an ether-bound frame, in which case he could indeed state that it had been "accepted by everybody." In 1900 and in later writings he defined the apparent time of a moving observer in such a way that the velocity of light measured by this observer would be the same as if he were at rest (with respect to the ether). This does not mean, however, that he meant the postulate to apply in any inertial frame. From his point of view, the true velocity of light in a moving frame was not a constant but was given by the Galilean law of addition of velocities." http://www.jstor.org/stable/3653092

George Orwell: "Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them."

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
Einstein's Constant-Speed-of-Light Nonsense and Big Brother's 2+2=5 Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 1 July 22nd 20 12:43 AM
Metastases of Einstein's Constant-Speed-of-Light Nonsense Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 1 May 18th 19 07:10 PM
Explaining Einstein's Constant-Speed-of-Light Nonsense Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 April 19th 19 09:01 AM
Why Einstein's Constant-Speed-of-Light Postulate Is Nonsense Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 March 2nd 19 08:01 AM
Why Einstein's Constant Speed of Light Is Nonsense Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 1 February 18th 19 08:52 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.