EINSTEIN AGAINST MAXWELL AND NEWTON

The following text is consistent with Einstein's relativity theory but
inconsistent with both Maxwell's electromagnetic theory and Newton's
emission theory of light:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ang/index.html
John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer
were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now
pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would
mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to
have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE
BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)."

The following text is consistent with both Maxwell's electromagnetic
theory and Newton's emission theory of light but inconsistent with
Einstein's relativity theory:

Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer were to hurry
towards the source of the light, the observer would now pass
wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would mean
that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to have
increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE SPEED OF LIGHT - TO HAVE
INCREASED AS WELL).

Conclusion: Either both Maxwell's electromagnetic theory and Newton's
emission theory are wrong or Einstein's relativity theory is wrong.

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev wrote:
The following text is consistent with Einstein's relativity theory but
inconsistent with both Maxwell's electromagnetic theory and Newton's
emission theory of light:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ang/index.html
John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer
were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now
pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would
mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to
have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE
BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)."

The following text is consistent with both Maxwell's electromagnetic
theory and Newton's emission theory of light but inconsistent with
Einstein's relativity theory:

Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer were to hurry
towards the source of the light, the observer would now pass
wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would mean
that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to have
increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE SPEED OF LIGHT - TO HAVE
INCREASED AS WELL).

Conclusion: Either both Maxwell's electromagnetic theory and Newton's
emission theory are wrong or Einstein's relativity theory is wrong.

Pentcho Valev

Einstein's theories of relativity (based upon an extraordinary bungle) are
the biggest nonsense ever. They degraded physics into much worse than
mumbo-jumbo, and turned all physicists and most scientists and artists into
perfect monsters. These horrid and disastrous creatures form the topmost
echelons of the Garg, the Garg, the Abominable Garg now ruling this planet:
a mass of millions of brainwashed cowards and spritual deadbeats, protected
by institutionalisation and public funding; amounting to a stinking miasma
of self-interest, hypocrisy and mediocrity. The politicians/celebs are
merely their pawns and puppets.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee.

obInsight into the Garg:
"Forty thousand clerks ruled Russia." - Tsar Nicholas

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
...
The following text is consistent with Einstein's relativity theory but
inconsistent with both Maxwell's electromagnetic theory and Newton's
emission theory of light:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ang/index.html
John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer
were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now
pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would
mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to
have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE
BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)."

The following text is consistent with both Maxwell's electromagnetic
theory and Newton's emission theory of light but inconsistent with
Einstein's relativity theory:

Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer were to hurry
towards the source of the light, the observer would now pass
wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would mean
that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to have
increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE SPEED OF LIGHT - TO HAVE
INCREASED AS WELL).

Conclusion: Either both Maxwell's electromagnetic theory and Newton's
emission theory are wrong or Einstein's relativity theory is wrong.

Pentcho Valev

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
...
The following text is consistent with Einstein's relativity theory but
inconsistent with both Maxwell's electromagnetic theory and Newton's
emission theory of light:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ang/index.html
John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer
were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now
pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would
mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to
have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE
BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)."


No, that is consistent with Maxwell and SR, (but inconsistent with Newton's
emission theory).


The following text is consistent with both Maxwell's electromagnetic
theory and Newton's emission theory of light but inconsistent with
Einstein's relativity theory:

Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer were to hurry
towards the source of the light, the observer would now pass
wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would mean
that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to have
increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE SPEED OF LIGHT - TO HAVE
INCREASED AS WELL).


No, that is inconsistent with both Maxwell and SR.


Conclusion: Either both Maxwell's electromagnetic theory and Newton's
emission theory are wrong or Einstein's relativity theory is wrong.


No, the conclusion is either that SR and Maxwell are correct and Newton's
emission theory is wrong, or Newton's emission theory is correct and SR and
Maxwell are wrong.

Given the huge experimental support for both Maxwell's equations and SR, I
wouldn't bank on Newton's emission theory being correct and Maxwell being
wrong!



Pentcho Valev

On Dec 9, 7:36 pm, PD (Paul Draper) wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
On Dec 9, 12:54 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:

The following text is consistent with Einstein's relativity theory but
inconsistent with both Maxwell's electromagnetic theory and Newton's
emission theory of light:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ang/index.html
John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer
were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now
pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would
mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to
have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE
BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)."

And this is directly confirmed in experiment.
However, it is consistent with Maxwell's electromagnetic theory; you
got that wrong.

The problem, Clever Draper, is whether Maxwell's electromagnetic
theory predicts that the speed of light is unaffected/affected by the
movements of the observer. Consider this, Clever Draper:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../01/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "The difficulty Einstein faced is that Maxwells
electrodynamics cannot be an emission theory. One of the most
important consequences of the theory is that light in a vacuum always
propagates at the same speed, c=186,000 miles per second, WITH RESPECT
TO THE ETHER. Its velocity of propagation is unaffected by the
velocity of the emitter."

Would John Norton have been right if he had written:

John Norton's text modified: "The difficulty Einstein faced is that
Maxwells electrodynamics cannot be an emission theory. One of the most
important consequences of the theory is that light in a vacuum always
propagates at the same speed, c=186,000 miles per second, WITH RESPECT
TO BOTH THE ETHER AND THE OBSERVER. Its velocity of propagation is
unaffected by the velocities of BOTH THE EMITTER AND THE OBSERVER."

Again: Clever Draper, is the speed of light unaffected/affected by the
movements of the observer according to Maxwell's electromagnetic
theory?

Pentcho Valev

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
...
On Dec 9, 7:36 pm, PD (Paul Draper) wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
On Dec 9, 12:54 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:

The following text is consistent with Einstein's relativity theory but
inconsistent with both Maxwell's electromagnetic theory and Newton's
emission theory of light:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ang/index.html
John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer
were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now
pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would
mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to
have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE
BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)."

And this is directly confirmed in experiment.
However, it is consistent with Maxwell's electromagnetic theory; you
got that wrong.

The problem, Clever Draper, is whether Maxwell's electromagnetic
theory predicts that the speed of light is unaffected/affected by the
movements of the observer. Consider this, Clever Draper:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../01/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "The difficulty Einstein faced is that Maxwells
electrodynamics cannot be an emission theory. One of the most
important consequences of the theory is that light in a vacuum always
propagates at the same speed, c=186,000 miles per second, WITH RESPECT
TO THE ETHER. Its velocity of propagation is unaffected by the
velocity of the emitter."

This is the exact bungle made. This is where the problem lies. The
velocity of propagation IS affected by the velocity of the emitter.
In the context of the MMI experiment, to argue otherwise would be to stick
the Earth in space following the Aristotleian model.
But the Earth moves!
Because it moves, the so-called null results are obtained, and they are
perfectly valid. As the Earth moves, the equipment also moves (does not
remain stuck) and so the light is faster and slower in and against the
direction of Earth's motion.
I have explained this matter in great detail, over the last several years,
in many Usenet postings.
It is amazing, how much mischief has been done through oversight of this
single, but subtle point.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee.


Would John Norton have been right if he had written:

John Norton's text modified: "The difficulty Einstein faced is that
Maxwells electrodynamics cannot be an emission theory. One of the most
important consequences of the theory is that light in a vacuum always
propagates at the same speed, c=186,000 miles per second, WITH RESPECT
TO BOTH THE ETHER AND THE OBSERVER. Its velocity of propagation is
unaffected by the velocities of BOTH THE EMITTER AND THE OBSERVER."

Again: Clever Draper, is the speed of light unaffected/affected by the
movements of the observer according to Maxwell's electromagnetic
theory?

Pentcho Valev

To make matters more clear, the speed of light c is c+v when emitted by an
emitter travelling at speed v with respect to an inertial frame of
reference. It is c-v when emitted in the opposite direction of travel.
As the emitter is moving at speed v, it covers space vt in the time the
light reflects and back. The reflector is also moving at v, so it covers an
extra distance of vt/2 for the light to hit it. So in the forward journey
the light at higher speed covers an extra distance, while in the return
journey the light at lower speed covers a lesser distance. Thus the times
match, and no nulls are obtained. Exactly as it should be.
Taking these facts into consideration, the nulls that the MMI experiment
got, had to happen.
This is putting it briefly. I have talked about this in greater detail, and
with diagrams, over the past few years in Usenet.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee.

"Arindam Banerjee" wrote in message
...

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
...
On Dec 9, 7:36 pm, PD (Paul Draper) wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
On Dec 9, 12:54 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:

The following text is consistent with Einstein's relativity theory but
inconsistent with both Maxwell's electromagnetic theory and Newton's
emission theory of light:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ang/index.html
John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer
were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now
pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would
mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to
have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE
BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)."

And this is directly confirmed in experiment.
However, it is consistent with Maxwell's electromagnetic theory; you
got that wrong.

The problem, Clever Draper, is whether Maxwell's electromagnetic
theory predicts that the speed of light is unaffected/affected by the
movements of the observer. Consider this, Clever Draper:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../01/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "The difficulty Einstein faced is that Maxwells
electrodynamics cannot be an emission theory. One of the most
important consequences of the theory is that light in a vacuum always
propagates at the same speed, c=186,000 miles per second, WITH RESPECT
TO THE ETHER. Its velocity of propagation is unaffected by the
velocity of the emitter."

This is the exact bungle made. This is where the problem lies. The
velocity of propagation IS affected by the velocity of the emitter.
In the context of the MMI experiment, to argue otherwise would be to stick
the Earth in space following the Aristotleian model.
But the Earth moves!
Because it moves, the so-called null results are obtained, and they are
perfectly valid. As the Earth moves, the equipment also moves (does not
remain stuck) and so the light is faster and slower in and against the
direction of Earth's motion.
I have explained this matter in great detail, over the last several years,
in many Usenet postings.
It is amazing, how much mischief has been done through oversight of this
single, but subtle point.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee.


Would John Norton have been right if he had written:

John Norton's text modified: "The difficulty Einstein faced is that
Maxwells electrodynamics cannot be an emission theory. One of the most
important consequences of the theory is that light in a vacuum always
propagates at the same speed, c=186,000 miles per second, WITH RESPECT
TO BOTH THE ETHER AND THE OBSERVER. Its velocity of propagation is
unaffected by the velocities of BOTH THE EMITTER AND THE OBSERVER."

Again: Clever Draper, is the speed of light unaffected/affected by the
movements of the observer according to Maxwell's electromagnetic
theory?

Pentcho Valev

Needless to add, when the first postulate (about the speed of light being
invariant with respect to the speed of the emitter) of relativity falls
flat, gets ground into dust, the WHOLE STRUCTURE OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY
BECOMES RIDICULOUS NONSENSE.

"Arindam Banerjee" wrote in message
...
To make matters more clear, the speed of light c is c+v when emitted by
an emitter travelling at speed v with respect to an inertial frame of
reference. It is c-v when emitted in the opposite direction of travel.
As the emitter is moving at speed v, it covers space vt in the time the
light reflects and back. The reflector is also moving at v, so it covers
an extra distance of vt/2 for the light to hit it. So in the forward
journey the light at higher speed covers an extra distance, while in the
return journey the light at lower speed covers a lesser distance. Thus the
times match, and no nulls are obtained. Exactly as it should be.
Taking these facts into consideration, the nulls that the MMI experiment
got, had to happen.
This is putting it briefly. I have talked about this in greater detail,
and with diagrams, over the past few years in Usenet.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee.

"Arindam Banerjee" wrote in message
...

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
...
On Dec 9, 7:36 pm, PD (Paul Draper) wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
On Dec 9, 12:54 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:

The following text is consistent with Einstein's relativity theory
but
inconsistent with both Maxwell's electromagnetic theory and Newton's
emission theory of light:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ang/index.html
John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer
were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now
pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would
mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to
have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE
BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)."

And this is directly confirmed in experiment.
However, it is consistent with Maxwell's electromagnetic theory; you
got that wrong.

The problem, Clever Draper, is whether Maxwell's electromagnetic
theory predicts that the speed of light is unaffected/affected by the
movements of the observer. Consider this, Clever Draper:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../01/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "The difficulty Einstein faced is that Maxwells
electrodynamics cannot be an emission theory. One of the most
important consequences of the theory is that light in a vacuum always
propagates at the same speed, c=186,000 miles per second, WITH RESPECT
TO THE ETHER. Its velocity of propagation is unaffected by the
velocity of the emitter."

This is the exact bungle made. This is where the problem lies. The
velocity of propagation IS affected by the velocity of the emitter.
In the context of the MMI experiment, to argue otherwise would be to
stick the Earth in space following the Aristotleian model.
But the Earth moves!
Because it moves, the so-called null results are obtained, and they are
perfectly valid. As the Earth moves, the equipment also moves (does not
remain stuck) and so the light is faster and slower in and against the
direction of Earth's motion.
I have explained this matter in great detail, over the last several
years, in many Usenet postings.
It is amazing, how much mischief has been done through oversight of this
single, but subtle point.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee.


Would John Norton have been right if he had written:

John Norton's text modified: "The difficulty Einstein faced is that
Maxwells electrodynamics cannot be an emission theory. One of the most
important consequences of the theory is that light in a vacuum always
propagates at the same speed, c=186,000 miles per second, WITH RESPECT
TO BOTH THE ETHER AND THE OBSERVER. Its velocity of propagation is
unaffected by the velocities of BOTH THE EMITTER AND THE OBSERVER."

Again: Clever Draper, is the speed of light unaffected/affected by the
movements of the observer according to Maxwell's electromagnetic
theory?

Pentcho Valev

On Dec 10, 11:23 pm, PD (Paul Draper) wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
On Dec 10, 12:57 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:

Again: Clever Draper, is the speed of light unaffected/affected by the
movements of the observer according to Maxwell's electromagnetic
theory?

Unaffected, according to Maxwell's equations, with the extra baggage
of the ether dropped and the principle of relativity included.

John Norton, an Einsteinian immeasurably cleverer than you, says that,
according to Maxwell's electromagnetic theory, the speed of light is
(1) constant with respect to the ether and (2) unaffected by the speed
of the emitter:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../01/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "The difficulty Einstein faced is that Maxwells
electrodynamics cannot be an emission theory. One of the most
important consequences of the theory is that light in a vacuum always
propagates at the same speed, c=186,000 miles per second, WITH RESPECT
TO THE ETHER. Its velocity of propagation is unaffected by the
velocity of the emitter."

If John Norton shared your view that, according to Maxwell's
electromagnetic theory, the speed of light is unaffected by the speed
of the observer as well, he would have written something like this:

"The difficulty Einstein faced is that Maxwells electrodynamics cannot
be an emission theory. One of the most important consequences of the
theory is that light in a vacuum always propagates at the same speed,
c=186,000 miles per second, WITH RESPECT TO BOTH THE ETHER AND THE
OBSERVER. Its velocity of propagation is unaffected by the velocities
of BOTH THE EMITTER AND THE OBSERVER."

In other words, if you are right and Maxwell's electromagnetic theory
says that the speed of light is unaffected by the movements of the
observer, John Norton's original text can be characterized as
suspiciously and unreasonably incomplete.

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev wrote:
The following text is consistent with Einstein's relativity theory but
inconsistent with both Maxwell's electromagnetic theory and Newton's
emission theory of light:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ang/index.html
John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer
were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now
pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would
mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to
have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE
BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)."

The following text is consistent with both Maxwell's electromagnetic
theory and Newton's emission theory of light but inconsistent with
Einstein's relativity theory:

Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer were to hurry
towards the source of the light, the observer would now pass
wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would mean
that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to have
increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE SPEED OF LIGHT - TO HAVE
INCREASED AS WELL).

Conclusion: Either both Maxwell's electromagnetic theory and Newton's
emission theory are wrong or Einstein's relativity theory is wrong.

Pentcho Valev