|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTION THAT RUINED PHYSICS
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cr...ining-physics/
Max Tegmark: "A Crisis in Physics (...) So, strictly speaking, we physicists can no longer predict anything at all! This means that today's best theories need a major shakeup by retiring an incorrect assumption. Which one? Here's my prime suspect: ∞." No. The incorrect assumption is Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate that Einstein took from the ether theory and which had been refuted by the Michelson-Morley experiment: http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/...in_ENGLISH.pdf Albert Einstein, What Is The Theory Of Relativity? (November 28, 1919): "The second principle, on which the special theory of relativity rests, is the "principle of the constant velocity of light in vacuo." This principle asserts that light in vacuo always has a definite velocity of propagation (independent of the state of motion of the observer or of the source of the light). The confidence which physicists place in this principle springs from the successes achieved by the electrodynamics of Maxwell and Lorentz." 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." Pentcho Valev |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTION THAT RUINED PHYSICS
In 1954 Einstein suggests that an incorrect assumption might have ruined physics:
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." Is "based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures" equivalent to "based upon the assumption that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source"? Yes it is: 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" 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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTION THAT RUINED PHYSICS
How did Einstein "discover" the constancy of the speed of light? See my comment he
http://www.starcitizenplay.com/2015/...d-black-holes/ askFSU 1 : speed of light, tachyons, solar sails, and black holes Pentcho Valev |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
EINSTEIN'S 1905 THIRD ASSUMPTION | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 4 | June 3rd 13 05:41 PM |
Has Tasco ruined Celestron? | bucky | Amateur Astronomy | 16 | August 8th 06 05:00 PM |
...The Scientific Method is Based on a False Assumption! | jonathan | Policy | 31 | May 7th 06 08:37 PM |
I'm ruined! | Dawn Baird-Chleborad | Amateur Astronomy | 9 | August 13th 04 04:14 PM |
They've ruined our newsgroup. | GO VOLS! | Amateur Astronomy | 9 | September 4th 03 05:30 PM |