|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
WHAT IF FASTER-THAN-LIGHT TRAVEL IS POSSIBLE
Einsteiniana's fundamental absurdities - time dilation and length
contraction - are deducible from the single assumption that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source. See pp. 12-16 in Chapter 11 in: http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/book.html Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions David Morin, Cambridge University Press So the hysteria around any faster-than-light travel established in experiment or theory would be a red herring (that is, Einsteiniana would continue to destroy human rationality) unless the assumption of independence is refuted. Fortunately the Michelson-Morley and Pound- Rebka experiments have UNEQUIVOCALLY shown that the variation of the speed of photons is identical to the variation of the speed of any material bodies, e.g. cannonballs. Pentcho Valev |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
WHAT IF FASTER-THAN-LIGHT TRAVEL IS POSSIBLE
http://www.phys.uconn.edu/~gibson/No...6_3/Sec6_3.htm
Professor George N. Gibson, University of Connecticut: "However, if either the source or the observer is moving, things change. This is called the Doppler effect. (...) To understand the moving observer, imagine you are in a motorboat on the ocean. If you are not moving, the boat will bob up and down with a certain frequency determined by the ocean waves coming in. However, imagine that you are moving into the waves fairly quickly. You will find that you bob up and down more rapidly, because you hit the crests of the waves sooner than if you were not moving. So, the frequency of the waves appears to be higher to you than if you were not moving. Notice, THE WAVES THEMSELVES HAVE NOT CHANGED, only your experience of them. Nevertheless, you would say that the frequency has increased. Now imagine that you are returning to shore, and so you are traveling in the same direction as the waves. In this case, the waves may still overtake you, but AT A MUCH SLOWER RATE - you will bob up and down more slowly. In fact, if you travel with exactly the same speed as the waves, you will not bob up and down at all. The same thing is true for sound waves, or ANY OTHER WAVES. If you are moving into a wave, its frequency will appear to you to be higher, while if you are traveling in the same direction as the waves, their frequency will appear to be lower. The formula for the frequency that the observer will detect depends on the speed of the observer - the larger the speed the greater the effect. If we call the speed of the observer, Vo, the frequency the observer detects will be: f'=f(1+Vo/Vwave). Here, f is the original frequency and Vwave is the speed of the wave." Clearly the speed of the waves relative to the observer VARIES with the speed of the observer in accordance with the equation: V' = Vwave + Vo which is in fact the fundamental equation of Newton's emission theory of light: c' = c + v So if the waves overtake the moving observer "AT A MUCH SLOWER RATE", then whether or not at CERN neutrinos travel faster than light does not matter at all - special relativity is wrong anyway. If the rate at which waves overtake the moving observer does not vary with his speed, then, somewhat surprisingly, whether or not at CERN neutrinos travel faster than light does not matter much again - fundamental effects such as time dilation and length contraction are valid consequences of the invariability in question. Pentcho Valev |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
WHAT IF FASTER-THAN-LIGHT TRAVEL IS POSSIBLE
Remember the martyr:
http://bryangwallace.dreamhost.com/s...ics/index.html Bryan Wallace 1994: "On page 4 of the September 19, 1993 issue of the Sunday Newspaper PARADE MAGAZINE, Carl Sagan wrote: "It would be demoralizing to learn that our science is medieval." But by the standards of the next few centuries, at least some of our present science will be considered medieval, extraterrestrials or no extraterrestrials. At the very top of the pile of medieval theories will be Einstein's relativity theory that starts with the postulate that for some undefined abstract mystic reason, the speed of light is the same for all observers, no matter how fast they or an observed object travels!" http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/8/...9-p361-367.pdf RADAR TESTING OF THE RELATIVE VELOCITY OF LIGHT IN SPACE Bryan G. Wallace, Spectroscopy Letters 1969 pages 361-367 ABSTRACT: "Published interplanetary radar data presents evidence that the relative velocity of light in space is c+v and not c." INTRODUCTION: "There are three main theories about the relativity velocity of light in space. The Newtonian corpuscular theory is relativistic in the Galilean sense and postulates that the velocity is c+v relative to the observer. The ether theory postulates that the velocity is c relative to the ether. The Einstein theory postulates that the velocity is c relative to the observer. The Michelson-Morley experiment presents evidence against the ether theory and for the c+v theory. The c theory explains the results of this experiment by postulating ad hoc properties of space and time..." http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm Bryan Wallace: "There is a popular argument that the world's oldest profession is sexual prostitution. I think that it is far more likely that the oldest profession is scientific prostitution, and that it is still alive and well, and thriving in the 20th century. I suspect that long before sex had any commercial value, the prehistoric shamans used their primitive knowledge to acquire status, wealth, and political power, in much the same way as the dominant scientific and religious politicians of our time do. (...) Because many of the dominant theories of our time do not follow the rules of science, they should more properly be labeled pseudoscience. The people who tend to believe more in theories than in the scientific method of testing theories, and who ignore the evidence against the theories they believe in, should be considered pseudoscientists and not true scientists. To the extent that the professed beliefs are based on the desire for status, wealth, or political reasons, these people are scientific prostitutes. (...) Einstein's special relativity theory with his second postulate that the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin that holds the whole range of modern physics theories together. Shatter this postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate farce! (...) The speed of light is c+v. (...) I expect that the scientists of the future will consider the dominant abstract physics theories of our time in much the same light as we now consider the Medieval theories of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin or that the Earth stands still and the Universe moves around it." [Note: Bryan Wallace wrote "The Farce of Physics" on his deathbed hence some imperfections in the text!] Pentcho Valev |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
WHAT IF FASTER-THAN-LIGHT TRAVEL IS POSSIBLE
Einstein's 1905 light postulate:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ "...light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body." Clearly faster-than-light travel (of neutrinos) and the light postulate are perfectly compatible. That is, neutrinos' speed could be ten times greater than the light speed but this would not prevent light from being "always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body". Insofar as the fate of special relativity is concerned, the neutrinos-faster-than-light hysteria is a red herring par excellence. Relevant scenarios threatening special relativity are those in which the fact that the speed of light does depend on the speed of the light source or the observer is noticeable in some way, e.g. takes the form of a Doppler shift measured by a moving observer. Pentcho Valev |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
WHAT IF FASTER-THAN-LIGHT TRAVEL IS POSSIBLE
http://www.pressherald.com/news/nati...011-09-24.html
"Challenging Einstein usually a losing venture, history shows. Betting against Einstein and his theory of relativity is a way to go broke. For more than a century, everyone from physicists to the Nazi Party – which encouraged the publication of the tract "One Hundred Authors Against Einstein" – has tried to find cracks in his work. And all have failed. Some experimental results at first seemed to contradict relativity, only later to be found to fit neatly with the theory Albert Einstein loved for its simplicity and elegance." The null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment, for instance, at first seemed to contradict the assumption that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source (Einstein's light postulate), only later to be forced by "later writers" to fit neatly with the theory Albert Einstein loved for its simplicity and elegance: http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/companion.doc John Norton: "These efforts were long misled by an exaggeration of the importance of one experiment, the Michelson-Morley experiment, even though Einstein later had trouble recalling if he even knew of the experiment prior to his 1905 paper. This one experiment, in isolation, has little force. Its null result happened to be fully compatible with Newton's own emission theory of light. Located in the context of late 19th century electrodynamics when ether-based, wave theories of light predominated, however, it presented a serious problem that exercised the greatest theoretician of the day." http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its.../dp/0486406768 "Relativity and Its Roots" By 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." http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf John Norton: "In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues that reveal Einstein's serious consideration of an emission theory of light; and he gave us the crucial insight that Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity. Even today, this point needs emphasis. The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE." Pentcho Valev |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
WHAT IF FASTER-THAN-LIGHT TRAVEL IS POSSIBLE
My claim:
"Insofar as the fate of special relativity is concerned, the neutrinos- faster-than-light hysteria is a red herring par excellence." was not quite correct. It can be proved, although the proof is somewhat complicated, that if a signal is faster than light, special relativity predicts that an event (bomb explosion) occurs according to one observer and does not occur according to the other: http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf pp. 41-42: "11.6. Train in a tunnel. A train and a tunnel both have proper lengths L. The train moves toward the tunnel at speed v. A bomb is located at the front of the train. The bomb is designed to explode when the front of the train passes the far end of the tunnel. A deactivation sensor is located at the back of the train. When the back of the train passes the near end of the tunnel, the sensor tells the bomb to disarm itself. Does the bomb explode?" A much easier and more convincing proof of the contradictory nature of special relativity is supplied by the so-called bug-rivet paradox: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu.../bugrivet.html "The bug-rivet paradox is a variation on the twin paradox and is similar to the pole-barn paradox.....The end of the rivet hits the bottom of the hole before the head of the rivet hits the wall. So it looks like the bug is squashed.....All this is nonsense from the bug's point of view. The rivet head hits the wall when the rivet end is just 0.35 cm down in the hole! The rivet doesn't get close to the bug....The paradox is not resolved." Pentcho Valev |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
WHAT IF FASTER-THAN-LIGHT TRAVEL IS POSSIBLE
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message ... | My claim: | | "Insofar as the fate of special relativity is concerned, the neutrinos- | faster-than-light hysteria is a red herring par excellence." | | was not quite correct. It can be proved, although the proof is | somewhat complicated, that if a signal is faster than light, special | relativity predicts that an event (bomb explosion) Such events are specifically excluded by the cop out: "For velocities greater than that of light our deliberations become meaningless; we shall, however, find in what follows, that the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an infinitely great velocity." You don't need to go through any mental bomb contortions, Einstein as already masturbated and played the part, physically, of the world's infinitely greatest ******. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
WHAT IF FASTER-THAN-LIGHT TRAVEL IS POSSIBLE
Einsteinians devise idiotic red herrings in panic and despair:
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/ar...neutrinos?bn=1 "Damn those neutrinos. (...) "All of our understanding of cosmology and subatomic matter - everything will have to be revised," says Neil Turok, director of the Perimeter Institute in Waterloo, among the world's leading centres for research in theoretical physics. "We will have to work out everything all over again." (...) "If this experiment is right," says Turok, "from one point of view, the particles would have gone backward in time." In such a universe - one that permits chronological movement in reverse - it might also be possible for the consequences of an action to precede the action itself, and you don't need a PhD to be troubled by that. "That's kind of at the root of this," says Turok." Pentcho Valev |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
WHAT IF FASTER-THAN-LIGHT TRAVEL IS POSSIBLE
The solution to the *train in a tunnel* problem is on p. 57 in David
Morin's text: http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf p. 57: "Yes, the bomb explodes. This is clear in the frame of the train... (...) We can, however, also look at things in the frame of the tunnel... (...) Therefore, the deactivation device gets triggered before the front of the train passes the far end of the tunnel, so you might think that the bomb does not explode. We appear to have a paradox. The resolution to this paradox is that the deactivation device cannot instantaneously tell the bomb to deactivate itself. It takes a finite time for the signal to travel the length of the train from the sensor to the bomb. And it turns out that this transmission time makes it impossible for the deactivation signal to get to the bomb before the bomb gets to the far end of the tunnel, no matter how fast the train is moving. Let's show this. The signal has the best chance of winning this "race" if it has speed c, so let's assume this is the case..." It can be rigorously proved that, if the deactivation signal's speed is higher than c (e.g. neutrinos faster than light are used), the signal does get to the bomb before the bomb gets to the far end of the tunnel. So special relativity predicts that the bomb explodes in the frame of the train and does not explode in the frame of the tunnel. Pentcho Valev wrote: My claim: "Insofar as the fate of special relativity is concerned, the neutrinos- faster-than-light hysteria is a red herring par excellence." was not quite correct. It can be proved, although the proof is somewhat complicated, that if a signal is faster than light, special relativity predicts that an event (bomb explosion) occurs according to one observer and does not occur according to the other: http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf pp. 41-42: "11.6. Train in a tunnel. A train and a tunnel both have proper lengths L. The train moves toward the tunnel at speed v. A bomb is located at the front of the train. The bomb is designed to explode when the front of the train passes the far end of the tunnel. A deactivation sensor is located at the back of the train. When the back of the train passes the near end of the tunnel, the sensor tells the bomb to disarm itself. Does the bomb explode?" A much easier and more convincing proof of the contradictory nature of special relativity is supplied by the so-called bug-rivet paradox: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu.../bugrivet.html "The bug-rivet paradox is a variation on the twin paradox and is similar to the pole-barn paradox.....The end of the rivet hits the bottom of the hole before the head of the rivet hits the wall. So it looks like the bug is squashed.....All this is nonsense from the bug's point of view. The rivet head hits the wall when the rivet end is just 0.35 cm down in the hole! The rivet doesn't get close to the bug....The paradox is not resolved." Pentcho Valev |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
WHAT IF FASTER-THAN-LIGHT TRAVEL IS POSSIBLE
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message ... | The solution to the *train in a tunnel* problem is on p. 57 in David | Morin's text: Your mental wanking is pointless. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Device Makes Radio Waves Travel Faster Than Light! | Double-A[_3_] | Misc | 24 | July 20th 09 06:42 PM |
Device Makes Radio Waves Travel Faster Than Light! | Warhol[_1_] | Misc | 8 | July 7th 09 04:22 AM |
Device Makes Radio Waves Travel Faster Than Light! | BradGuth | Misc | 4 | July 2nd 09 08:39 PM |
Device Makes Radio Waves Travel Faster Than Light! | Double-A[_3_] | Misc | 0 | July 2nd 09 02:31 AM |
Celestia & faster than light travel | [email protected] | Amateur Astronomy | 6 | August 25th 05 07:17 PM |