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

Waves for Einstein Dingleberries



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #1  
Old August 4th 08, 12:30 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,fr.sci.physique,fr.sci.astrophysique,sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default Waves for Einstein Dingleberries

On Aug 3, 8:54*pm, hwabnig@ .- --- -. dotat wrote in sci.physics:
Swimmingpool physics (or duck - pond physics)
shows clearly that there is no c+v

Watch them duck waves !


http://www.stadt-zuerich.ch/internet...tenteich_1.JPG


http://www.schaerligbad.ch/restauran...eich/index.htm


c is wave speed, v is duck speed.
(or hanson speed, if he takes a swim).


No Clever Wabnig you are confused again. c+v is unavoidable even if
you prefer the wave model of light. In this case v is the speed of the
observer relative to the pool. As you can see, Clever Wabnig,
Einstein's 1905 light postulate is incommensurable with both the
particle and wave models of light. Banesh Hoffmann, Einstein's
apostle, explains this quite well:

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

 




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
Next Einstein Giovanni Amelino-Camelia against Original Einstein(Divine Albert) Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 October 25th 11 01:00 AM
Book Review: Traveling at the Speed of Thought: Einstein and the Quest for Gravitational Waves Robert Karl Stonjek Astronomy Misc 0 June 8th 07 11:49 AM
Einstein was an atheist. ACTUALLY EINSTEIN WAS AN IDIOT 46erjoe Misc 964 March 10th 07 06:10 AM
Calling Einstein bluff .. OK AGAIN with CApItaLS CALLING EINSTEIN BLUFF, MEASURING OWLS ftl_freak Astronomy Misc 0 October 6th 05 04:48 PM
Einstein@Home: Search for Gravitational Waves Davoud Amateur Astronomy 6 February 25th 05 06:20 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.