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

DID EINSTEIN SIDE WITH MAXWELL ?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 19th 13, 06:34 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default DID EINSTEIN SIDE WITH MAXWELL ?

http://www.physics.fsu.edu/courses/s...Relativity.htm
Prof. Harrison B. Prosper, Florida State University: "In 1905 Albert Einstein introduced his theory of special relativity. With this theory Einstein sought to make the laws of motion consistent with James Clerk Maxwell's (1831-1879) laws of electromagnetism. Those laws predicted that light in vacuum traveled at a speed c (about 300,000 km/s) that was independent of the motion of the observer of the light and of the light source. Newton's law of motion, however, predicted that the speed of light should depend upon the motion of the observer. Einstein basically sided with Maxwell!"

The concept that the speed of light (relative to the observer) is independent of the speed of the observer is popular in Divine Albert's world but it is just as idiotic as the concept that 2+2=5 (popular in Big Brother's world):

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwe...hapter1.7.html
"In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"

So Einstein could not have sided with Maxwell for the simple reason that Maxwell's theory could not have predicted something as idiotic as "the speed of light is independent of the speed of the observer":

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/Chasing.pdf
JOHN NORTON: "That [Maxwell's] theory allows light to slow and be frozen in the frame of reference of a sufficiently rapidly moving observer."

http://culturesciencesphysique.ens-l..._CSP_relat.xml
Gabrielle Bonnet, École Normale Supérieure de Lyon: "Les équations de Maxwell font en particulier intervenir une constante, c, qui est la vitesse de la lumière dans le vide. Par un changement de référentiel classique, si c est la vitesse de la lumière dans le vide dans un premier référentiel, et si on se place désormais dans un nouveau référentiel en translation par rapport au premier à la vitesse constante v, la lumière devrait désormais aller à la vitesse c-v si elle se déplace dans la direction et le sens de v, et à la vitesse c+v si elle se déplace dans le sens contraire."

http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-.../dp/0553380168
Stephen Hawking: "Maxwell's theory predicted that radio or light waves should travel at a certain fixed speed. But Newton's theory had got rid of the idea of absolute rest, so if light was supposed to travel at a fixed speed, one would have to say what that fixed speed was to be measured relative to. It was therefore suggested that there was a substance called the "ether" that was present everywhere, even in "empty" space. Light waves should travel through the ether as sound waves travel through air, and their speed should therefore be relative to the ether. Different observers, moving relative to the ether, would see light coming toward them at different speeds, but light's speed relative to the ether would remain fixed."

Einstein knew that the speed-of-light-independent-of-speed-of-observer concept was idiotic but still found it profitable to introduce it, after some wrestling:

http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/...relativity.htm
John Stachel: "But here he ran into the most blatant-seeming contradiction, which I mentioned earlier when first discussing the two principles. As noted then, the Maxwell-Lorentz equations imply that there exists (at least) one inertial frame in which the speed of light is a constant regardless of the motion of the light source. Einstein's version of the relativity principle (minus the ether) requires that, if this is true for one inertial frame, it must be true for all inertial frames. But this seems to be nonsense. How can it happen that the speed of light relative to an observer cannot be increased or decreased if that observer moves towards or away from a light beam? Einstein states that he wrestled with this problem over a lengthy period of time, to the point of despair."

So Maxwell said the speed of light (relative to the observer) did depend on the speed of the observer, Einstein said it didn't. How are such problems solved in Divine Albert's world? By changing the past, as in Big Brother's world: nowadays 99% of the Einsteinians fiercely teach that Maxwell also said the speed of light didn't depend on the speed of the observer, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mpw68rvF4pc
Brian Cox flies towards the spotlight at 0.75c but the light somehow hits him in the face at c, not 1.75c. Cox is absolutely sure and teaches that this is a prediction of Maxwell's 19th century electromagnetic theory.

http://www.physics.fsu.edu/courses/S...15-ch27__2.pdf
"He [Maxwell] also showed the speed of light is independent of the motion of both the source and the observer."

http://www.planetastronomy.com/speci...20mars2005.htm
Françoise Balibar: "Maxwell rentre en scène : il pense que la lumière se propage dans un milieu matériel baptisé éther, ce qui est une erreur, mais il pense aussi que la lumière est un champ électromagnétique, ça c'est révolutionnaire. Il met au point ses célèbres équations dans lesquelles la vitesse de la lumière est la même dans l'éther (référentiel absolu) et dans tout autre référentiel en translation uniforme."

http://sfloccari.lycee-berthelot.fr/...relativit_.pdf
Françoise Balibar: "En effet, lors d'un changement de référentiel à un autre en translation uniforme par rapport à lui, la vitesse de la lumière (appelée ici c) ne devient pas c+V; elle reste c. Cette circonstance, résultat obligé de la théorie de la lumière développée au milieu du XIXè siècle par Maxwell...."

http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~gfl/...5/Lecture1.pdf
"As Maxwell's equations provide a single wave solution, with a velocity c, Einstein proposed the postulate of the constancy of the speed of light: The velocity of light in free space is the same for all inertial observers."

http://www.lecture-notes.co.uk/sussk...al-relativity/
Leonard Susskind: "One of the predictions of Maxwell's equations is that the velocity of electromagnetic waves, or light, is always measured to have the same value, regardless of the frame in which it is measured."

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-mc2-S.../dp/0306817586
Why Does E=mc2?: (And Why Should We Care?), Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw, p. 91: "...Maxwell's brilliant synthesis of the experimental results of Faraday and others strongly suggested that the speed of light should be the same for all observers."

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwe...hapter2.9.html
"Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and hence of guilt. Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably necessary."

Pentcho Valev
  #2  
Old October 19th 13, 04:22 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default DID EINSTEIN SIDE WITH MAXWELL ?

Why the speed-of-light-independent-of-speed-of-observer concept is idiotic:

http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler
Albert Einstein Institute: "The frequency of a wave-like signal - such as sound or light - depends on the movement of the sender and of the receiver. This is known as the Doppler effect. (...) Here is an animation of the receiver moving towards the source: (...) By observing the two indicator lights, you can see for yourself that, once more, there is a blue-shift - the pulse frequency measured at the receiver is somewhat higher than the frequency with which the pulses are sent out. This time, the distances between subsequent pulses are not affected, but still there is a frequency shift: As the receiver moves towards each pulse, the time until pulse and receiver meet up is shortened. In this particular animation, which has the receiver moving towards the source at one third the speed of the pulses themselves, four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses."

The fatal phrase, which is obviously correct, is:

"the distances between subsequent pulses are not affected"

If the Albert Einstein Institute want to save special relativity, they will have to replace the fatal phrase with an idiotic one:

"the distances between subsequent pulses are affected so that the speed of the pulses relative to the receiver gloriously remains constant, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity"

If the fatal phrase "the distances between subsequent pulses are not affected" is not replaced with the idiotic one, then in the above scenario the speed of the pulses relative to the receiver/observer is (4/3)c, in violation of special relativity.

This conclusion is consistent with the classical Doppler effect but one can easily see that the relativistic corrections change essentially nothing - the speed of the pulses relative to the receiver/observer remains different from c.

Pentcho Valev
  #3  
Old October 19th 13, 05:34 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default DID EINSTEIN SIDE WITH MAXWELL ?

Why the speed-of-light-independent-of-speed-of-observer concept is idiotic:

http://www.cmmp.ucl.ac.uk/~ahh/teach...24n/lect19.pdf
Tony Harker, University College London: "The Doppler Effect: Moving sources and receivers. The phenomena which occur when a source of sound is in motion are well known. The example which is usually cited is the change in pitch of the engine of a moving vehicle as it approaches. In our treatment we shall not specify the type of wave motion involved, and our results will be applicable to sound or to light. (...) Now suppose that the observer is moving with a velocity Vo away from the source. (....) If the observer moves with a speed Vo away from the source (...), then in a time t the number of waves which reach the observer are those in a distance (c-Vo)t, so the number of waves observed is (c-Vo)t/lambda, giving an observed frequency f'=f(1-Vo/c) when the observer is moving away from the source at a speed Vo."

If "in a time t the number of waves which reach the observer are those in a distance (c-Vo)t", then the speed of the light waves relative to the observer is:

c' = ((c - Vo)t)/t = c - Vo

in violation of special relativity. The relativistic corrections do not change essentially this conclusion - c' remains different from c. If Vo is small enough, the relativistic corrections are negligible and both f'=f(1-Vo/c) and c'=c-Vo are virtually exact formulas.

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
MAXWELL AND EINSTEIN'S LIGHT POSTULATE Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 August 22nd 13 12:23 AM
NEWTON AND MAXWELL REASONABLE, EINSTEIN ABSURD Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 10 May 5th 10 04:38 PM
HOW EINSTEIN USED MAXWELL Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 9 May 1st 10 12:14 AM
EINSTEIN AGAINST MAXWELL AND NEWTON Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 9 December 11th 09 03:04 PM
How Einstein destroyed both Newton and Maxwell Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 10 October 9th 08 01:50 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:45 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.