Faster than Light

Pentcho Valev

Mutual Time Dilation : Paradox or Absurdity?

"Time dilation can be mutual: When two inertial observers speed past each other, each will find that the other's clocks go slower."

Relativity and Its Roots, Banesh Hoffmann, p. 105: "In one case your clock is checked against two of mine, while in the other case my clock is checked against two of yours, and this permits us each to find without contradiction that the other's clocks go more slowly than his own."

There is nothing in Banesh Hoffmann's text above that justifies the words "without contradiction". "Without contradiction" could be justified if Einsteinians had devised and discussed at least one scenario where EITHER observer's clock is checked against two of the other observer's clocks (at some distance from one another). Instead, discussions in Divine Albert's world are restricted to the misleading twin paradox scenario where the travelling twin is implicitly deprived of the setup "two clocks at some distance from one another against which the sedentary twin's clock could be checked" and so there is no way to demonstrate the slowness of the sedentary twin's clock. Only the slowness of the travelling twin's clock can be demonstrated, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.

The following scenario allows EITHER observer's clock to be checked against two of the other observer's clocks. Two long inertial systems each carrying synchronous clocks pass one another:

..........Inertial system A moving to the right..........

..........Inertial system B moving to the left..........

The systems are so designed that, the moment they stop moving relative to one another, all clocks on both systems stop ticking. In this final static configuration clock A2 faces clock B1 and clock A1 faces clock B2:

..........A2..........A1..........

..........B1..........B2..........

Before reaching clock A2, clock B1 passed clock A1 and the difference in their readings, (A1then - B1then), was then registered. *Now*, in the final static configuration, clock B1 faces clock A2 and the difference in their readings is (A2now - B1now). Clearly clock B1 has been checked against two of Inertial system A's clocks so, according to special relativity, the following inequality holds:

(A2now - B1now) > (A1then - B1then) /1/

Before reaching clock B2, clock A1 passed clock B1 and the difference in their readings, (B1then - A1then), was then registered. *Now*, in the final static configuration, clock A1 faces clock B2 and the difference in their readings is (B2now - A1now). Clearly clock A1 has been checked against two of Inertial system B's clocks so, according to special relativity, the following inequality holds:

(B2now - A1now) > (B1then - A1then)

This inequality easily becomes:

(A1then - B1then) > (A1now - B2now)

Since clocks on Inertial system A were synchronous and stopped ticking simultaneously, A1now = A2now. For the same reason B2now = B1now. So the last inequality becomes:

(A1then - B1then) > (A2now - B1now) /2/

Inequalities /1/ and /2/ are contradictory and both are consequences of Einstein's 1905 light postulate. Reductio ad absurdum par excellence. The light postulate is false.

Pentcho Valev

Mutual length contraction: As judged from the 40 m barn's frame, the 80 m pole is shorter than 40 m and accordingly the pole is gloriously trapped inside the barn, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. As judged from the 80 m pole's frame, the 40 m barn is shorter than 20 m but nevertheless the relativity of simultaneity allows the pole to get gloriously trapped inside the barn, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Some Einsteinians believe that the 80 m pole is trapped inside the 40 m barn "IN A COMPRESSED STATE":

"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in the barn. (...) If it does not explode under the strain and it is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be trapped IN A COMPRESSED STATE inside the barn."

"Suppose you want to fit a 20m pole into a 10m barn. (...) Hence in both frames of reference, the pole fits inside the barn (and will presumably shatter when the doors are closed)."

Other Einsteinians agree that the long pole can be trapped inside the short barn but insist that the pole undergoes no compression or structural deformation, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity:

Stéphane Durand: "La contraction une longueur est un phénomène à la fois réel mais sans déformation structurelle. C'est un phénomène réel (et non pas une illusion) car, par exemple, une perche dont la longueur au repos est plus grande que la longueur au repos d'une grange peut réellement être contenue dans cette dernière si elle se déplace assez rapidement. Par contre, il ne peut y avoir de contraction structurelle de la perche, i.e de déformation matérielle de l'objet, car la contraction de sa longueur aurait aussi lieu si c'était plutôt l'observateur qui se mettait en mouvement sans changer l'état de mouvement de la perche. Autrement dit, sans changer l'état de la perche, en se mettant soi-même en mouvement, on change sa longueur: ce n'est donc clairement pas une contraction matérielle (l'état de la perche est le même dans les deux cas). De plus, si deux observateurs se mettent en mouvement à des vitesses différentes par rapport à la perche, ces deux observateurs vont mesurer une longueur différente de la même perche. Une situation inexplicable en termes de contraction matérielle de la perche."

Stéphane Durand: "Ainsi, une fusée de 100 m passant à toute vitesse dans un tunnel de 60 m pourrait être entièrement contenue dans ce tunnel pendant une fraction de seconde, durant laquelle il serait possible de fermer des portes aux deux bouts! La fusée est donc réellement plus courte. Pourtant, il n'y a PAS DE COMPRESSION matérielle ou physique de l'engin."

DIVINE EINSTEIN "No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein not Maxwell, Curie, or Bohr! His fame went glo-bell, he won the Nobel - He should have been given four! No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein, Professor with brains galore! No-one could outshine Professor Einstein! He gave us special relativity, That's always made him a hero to me! No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein, Professor in overdrive!"

We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Everything is relative, even simultaneity, and soon Einstein's become a de facto physics deity. 'cos we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.

Pentcho Valev

Mad Antirelativists or Mad Relativists?

When the observer starts moving towards (away from) the light source, antirelativists see the frequency and the speed of the light waves relative to the observer change while the wavelength remains unchanged. In contrast, relativists see the frequency and the wavelength change while the speed of the light waves relative to the observer remains unchanged, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity:

Introductory Astronomy: Doppler Effect Basics

Dr Ricardo Eusebi: "f'=f(1+v/c). Light frequency is relative to the observer. The velocity is not though. The velocity is the same in all the reference frames."

"The observer moves closer to the source. The wave received has a shorter wavelength (higher frequency) than that emitted by the source. The observer moves away from the source. The wave received has a longer wavelength (lower frequency) than that emitted by the source."

Mad antirelativists or mad relativists?

Pentcho Valev

Destruction of students' rationality in Divine Albert's world: The following video teaches that, when the observer starts moving towards the light source, "wavelengths are going to condense and so the frequency is going to be higher". Yet a transient note informs the student that "the wavelengths themselves do not actually condense, they just appear to condense to the observer":

Doppler effect for electromagnetic waves

Needless to say, wavelengths' strange behavior - they do not condense but appear to condense so that the observer could measure the same speed of the waves, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity - occurs only in Divine Albert's world. In a world different from Divine Albert's world the wavelength would be independent of the motion of the observer and the frequency shift in light waves, just like the frequency shift in sound waves, would be caused by a shift in the speed of the waves as measured by the observer:

"Sound waves have speed c, and f and L are related by c=Lf. For an observer moving relative to medium with speed u, apparent propagation speed c' will be different: c'=c±u. Wavelength cannot change - it's a constant length in the medium, and same length in moving coordinate system (motion does not change lengths). Observed frequency has to change, to match apparent speed and fixed wavelength: f'=c'/L."

See more here:

Shift in Frequency Implies Shift in Speed of Light

Pentcho Valev

Einstein's 1905 Game

Galina Weinstein: "In 1905 Planck was coeditor of the Annalen der Physik and soon a great supporter of Einstein's theory of relativity. Einstein used a seemingly conventional notion, "light complex", and he did not invoke his novel quanta of light heuristic with respect to the principle of relativity. He chose the language "light complex" for which no clear definition could be given in the relativity paper. But with hindsight, in 1905 Einstein made exactly the right choice not to mix concepts from his quantum paper with those from his relativity paper. He focused on the solution of his relativity problem, whose far-reaching perspectives Planck already sensed."

Why did Einstein have to use a muddled notion and hide "his novel quanta of light heuristic"? Because "his novel quanta of light heuristic" could have called the attention to the fact that Newton's emission theory of light naturally explains the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment, "without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations":

"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

An unaccustomed burst of honesty in 1909:

Albert Einstein: "A large body of facts shows undeniably that light has certain fundamental properties that are better explained by Newton's emission theory of light than by the oscillation theory. For this reason, I believe that the next phase in the development of theoretical physics will bring us a theory of light that can be considered a fusion of the oscillation and emission theories."

An unaccustomed burst of honesty nowadays:

Alberto Martinez: "Does the speed of light depend on the speed of its source? Before formulating his theory of special relativity, Albert Einstein spent a few years trying to formulate a theory in which the speed of light depends on its source, just like all material projectiles. Likewise, Walter Ritz outlined such a theory, where none of the peculiar effects of Einstein's relativity would hold. By 1913 most physicists abandoned such efforts, accepting the postulate of the constancy of the speed of light. Yet five decades later all the evidence that had been said to prove that the speed of light is independent of its source had been found to be defective."

Pentcho Valev

The Root of All the Evil in Physics

Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light, p. 250: "Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafés in South Kensington or Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL WAS CLEARLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY. All these paradoxes resulted from well known effects such as length contraction, time dilation, or E=mc^2, all basic predictions of special relativity. And all denied the possibility of establishing a well-defined border, common to all observers, capable of containing new quantum gravitational effects."

Yet Smolin and Magueijo do not want to see THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL gone. THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL is a bad old rat but the only one they have:

"Hum! Hum!" said the king. "I have good reason to believe that somewhere on my planet there is an old rat. I hear him at night. You can judge this old rat. From time to time you will condemn him to death. Thus his life will depend on your justice. But you will pardon him on each occasion; for he must be treated thriftily. He is the only one we have."

Pentcho Valev

The Only Thing You Need to Know in Physics

Joao Magueijo: "The constancy of the speed of light in modern physics is not just one more thing to remember. It is THE thing to remember. You don't need to know anything else in physics really."

Saboteurs ignore the sacrosanct constancy and suggest that the speed of light relative to the observer varies with the speed of the observer:

Roger Barlow, Professor of Particle Physics: "The Doppler effect - changes in frequencies when sources or observers are in motion - is familiar to anyone who has stood at the roadside and watched (and listened) to the cars go by. It applies to all types of wave, not just sound. (...) Moving Observer. Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer is moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/lambda waves pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/lambda. So f'=(c+v)/lambda."

"vO is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + vO. (...) The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time."

University of Texas: "Thus, the moving observer sees a wave possessing the same wavelength (...) but a different frequency (...) to that seen by the stationary observer. This phenomenon is known as the Doppler effect."

Fang-Yuh Lo, Department of Physics, National Taiwan Normal University: "Observer moves toward source: frequency becomes higher. Observer moves away from source: frequency becomes lower. How much higher (lower)? Wavelength does not change. Change in velocity: Vnew=Vwave±Vobs."

"Doppler effect (...) Let u be speed of source or observer (...) Doppler Shift: Moving Observer. Shift in frequency only, wavelength does not change. Speed observed = v+u (...) Observed frequency shift f'=f(1±u/v)"

"The Doppler effect is the shift in frequency of a wave that occurs when the wave source, or the detector of the wave, is moving. Applications of the Doppler effect range from medical tests using ultrasound to radar detectors and astronomy (with electromagnetic waves). (...) We will focus on sound waves in describing the Doppler effect, but it works for other waves too. (...) Let's say you, the observer, now move toward the source with velocity vO. You encounter more waves per unit time than you did before. Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed: v'=v+vO. The frequency of the waves you detect is higher, and is given by: f'=v'/(lambda)=(v+vO)/(lambda)."

"Consider the case where the observer moves toward the source. In this case, the observer is rushing head-long into the wavefronts, so that we expect v'>v. In fact, the wave speed is simply increased by the observer speed, as we can see by jumping into the observer's frame of reference. Thus, v'=v+v_o=v(1+v_o/v). Finally, the frequency must increase by exactly the same factor as the wave speed increased, in order to ensure that L'=L -> v'/f'=v/f. Putting everything together, we thus have: OBSERVER MOVING TOWARD SOURCE: L'=L; f'=f(1+v_o/v); v'=v+v_o."

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."

Pentcho Valev

Axioms of Newton's emission theory of light:

1. The principle of relativity is valid.

2. The speed of light depends on the speed of the emitter.

Axioms of the ether theory:

1. The principle of relativity is invalid.

2. The speed of light is independent of the speed of the emitter.

Axioms of Einstein's 1905 centaur:

1. The principle of relativity is valid.

2. The speed of light is independent of the speed of the emitter.

The emission theory and the ether theory are physically reasonable, although they cannot be both true. Einstein's 1905 centaur is not even false - it is simply idiotic.

Pentcho Valev

Emission Theory, Ether Theory, Einstein's 1905 Centaur

Axioms of Newton's emission theory of light:

1. The principle of relativity is valid.

2. The speed of light depends on the speed of the emitter.

Axioms of the ether theory:

1. The principle of relativity is invalid.

2. The speed of light is independent of the speed of the emitter.

Axioms of Einstein's 1905 centaur:

1. The principle of relativity is valid.

2. The speed of light is independent of the speed of the emitter.

The emission theory and the ether theory are physically reasonable, although they cannot be both true. The former establishes a straightforward analogy between photons and material projectiles - the speed of the emitter is added to the speed of the photon or projectile (c'=c+v). The ether theory is physically reasonable because it establishes a straightforward analogy between light waves and other kinds of waves.

Einstein's 1905 centaur is not even false - it is simply idiotic. A monstrous creature with a body (the principle of relativity) taken from the emission theory and a head taken from the ether theory:

"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. 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."

The "paradoxes" (more precisely, idiocies) produced by Einstein's 1905 centaur have in fact killed physics:

Peter Hayes "The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox" : Social Epistemology, Volume 23, Issue 1 January 2009, pages 57-78: "The gatekeepers of professional physics in the universities and research institutes are disinclined to support or employ anyone who raises problems over the elementary inconsistencies of relativity. A winnowing out process has made it very difficult for critics of Einstein to achieve or maintain professional status. Relativists are then able to use the argument of authority to discredit these critics. Were relativists to admit that Einstein may have made a series of elementary logical errors, they would be faced with the embarrassing question of WHY THIS HAD NOT BEEN NOTICED EARLIER. Under these circumstances the marginalisation of antirelativists, unjustified on scientific grounds, is eminently justifiable on grounds of realpolitik. Supporters of relativity theory have protected both the theory and their own reputations by shutting their opponents out of professional discourse."

Mike Alder: "It is easy to see the consequences of the takeover by the bureaucrats. Bureaucrats favour uniformity, it simplifies their lives. They want rules to follow. They prefer the dead to the living. They have taken over religions, the universities and now they are taking over Science. And they are killing it in the process. The forms and rituals remain, but the spirit is dead. The cold frozen corpse is so much more appealing to the bureaucratic mind-set than the living spirit of the quest for insight. Bureaucracies put a premium on the old being in charge, which puts a stop to innovation. Something perhaps will remain, but it will no longer attract the best minds. This, essentially, is the Smolin position. He gives details and examples of the DEATH OF PHYSICS, although he, being American, is optimistic that it can be reversed. I am not. (...) Developing ideas and applying them is done by a certain kind of temperament in a certain kind of setting, one where there is a good deal of personal freedom and a willingness to take risks. No doubt we still have the people. But the setting is gone and will not come back. Science is a product of the renaissance and an entrepreneurial spirit. It will not survive the triumph of bureacracy. Despite having the infrastructure, China never developed Science. And soon the West won't have it either."

Pentcho Valev

Eckard Blumschein

Dear Pentcho,

May I ask you to take issue here?

In my endnotes, I am offering a way out of the dilemma. As a result, the vast democrazy does not support my essay.

The majority of participants in the contest seems to support Christian Corda. He is heading an institute named after Galilei and Einstein. Does not the crowd declare Galileo wrong but Georg Cantor's aleph_2 correct? I prefer Michelson's opinion about what he called a monster theory.

Eckard

Steve Dufourny

If I can,Mr Corda is rational and determnist ,he understands ,him,the SR and the general relativity.

His works are relevant.

Pentcho Valev

The Ultimate-Speed-Limit Red Herring

"The speed of light is considered to be the ultimate cosmic speed limit, thanks to Einstein's special theory of relativity. But physicists aren't content to assume this limit without testing it."

Einstein's 1905 light postulate says that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the emitter. This, combined with the principle of relativity, validly leads to the conclusion that the speed of light (relative to the observer) is independent of the speed of the observer as well. This conclusion has been tested countless times (Doppler effect, stationary source, moving observer) and the result is straightforward: the conclusion is false, that is, the speed of light (relative to the observer) does depend on the speed of the observer.

In order to detract the attention from this and other failures of special relativity, Einsteinians have devised the ultimate-cosmic-speed-limit red herring. "Nothing can move faster than light according to special relativity" is the mantra, although there seems to be no valid deduction of "nothing can move faster than light" from Einstein's 1905 two postulates. Needless to say, Einsteinians have also wasted billions and billions in experiments gloriously showing that "nothing can move faster than light".

Pentcho Valev

Thomas Ray

"Needless to say, Einsteinians have also wasted billions and billions in experiments gloriously showing that 'nothing can move faster than light'.

If it goes without saying, why do you keep saying it?

Special relativity doesn't claim that nothing can move faster than light. The theory says that communication of physical influences between massive bodies is limited to the speed of light regardless of the bodies' state of motion. That is very different from saying that nothing can move faster than light.

That observers measure the speed of light to be the same value at any angle (i.e., in any rest frame between observers making simultaneous measures),gives us a rigid standard of instantaneous measurement. If what you say about the Doppler effect and observer motion were true -- such observers' simultaneous measurement of the signal speed between them would make no physical sense, because it would be infinity to one observer and zero to the other. This is why when relativity is generalized to include accelerated motion such as the Doppler effect addresses, the rigid rods and absolute timekeeping devices of Newton's universe lose their rigidity and become rubbery in the medium of spacetime.

The red herring is apparently tied to your own tail.

Pentcho Valev

The Fundamental Falsehood of Modern Physics

"Lakatos distinguished between two parts of a scientific theory: its "hard core" which contains its basic assumptions (or axioms, when set out formally and explicitly), and its "protective belt", a surrounding defensive set of "ad hoc" (produced for the occasion) hypotheses. (...) In Lakatos' model, we have to explicitly take into account the "ad hoc hypotheses" which serve as the protective belt. The protective belt serves to deflect "refuting" propositions from the core assumptions..."

Length contraction, time dilation, relativity of simultaneity - these are the constituents of the "protective belt" deflecting refuting propositions from the fundamental falsehood of modern physics - the assumption (taken from the ether theory) that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the emitter. There is also a purely political protective belt consisting in systematic persecution and marginalization of people threatening the fundamental falsehood:

Conference broshure: "While the organizing committee encourages critical investigations and welcomes both Einsteinian and non-Einsteinian (Lorentzian, etc.) approaches, including the recently proposed ether-type theories, it is assumed that the received formal structure of the theory is valid and anti-relativistic papers will not be accepted."

Pentcho Valev

Eckard Blumschein

Pentcho,

While I agree with Imre Lipshitz on that Cauchy's concept of the continuum differed from currently dominant views, I wonder if he spoke as do you of a "fundamental falsehood of modern physics - the assumption (taken from the ether theory) that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the emitter".

I rather see you a part of the same "protective belt" that does not accept anti-relativistic papers. You know my position: Ether theories as well as emission theories may be wrong because they are bound to hypothetical properties of matter.

Eckard

Pentcho Valev

The Fundamental Falsehood of Modern Physics II

"Contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations" - so Banesh Hoffmann presents the "protective belt" that deflects refuting propositions from the fundamental falsehood of modern physics - the assumption (taken from the ether theory) that THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS INDEPENDENT OF THE SPEED OF THE EMITTER:

"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."

In the absence of the protective belt, the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment unequivocally confirms the variable speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light (c'=c+v) and refutes the fundamental falsehood of modern physics, that is, refutes the assumption (taken from the ether theory) that THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS INDEPENDENT OF THE SPEED OF THE EMITTER:

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."

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

Eckard Blumschein

Pentcho,

Do we really need taking light to consist of particles and assuming that these particles obey Newton's laws and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations?

Having dealt with the expectations behind Michelson's experiment and his distrust in Einstein's "monster", I don't consider the importance of Michelson's experiment exaggerated.

Well, I failed so far to convince the community that theories by JA Wheeler, Ruth Kastner, Julian Barbour, Paul Borrill, and others are defending a fallacy. Hoffmann spoke of "Newtonian relativity", I would like to object that Newton was born in the same year as Galileo died. If I recall correctly, Einstein's relativity adopted an idea by Lorentz. Aren't all these relativities in so far questionable as they are generalizing the relationship between two moving relative to each other points as if there did not exist at least a third independently moving point too? In order to understand the problem we may restrict our model to just three points A, B, C along a straight line. Doesn't Einstein's first principle turn out illusory?

Eckard

Pentcho Valev

Eckard,

"Do we really need taking light to consist of particles and assuming that these particles obey Newton's laws and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations?"

We don't, and most of the time I treat light as consisting of waves, not particles. Yet the hypothesis that the speed of light varies with the speed of the emitter (c'=c+v) does "account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations". In contrast, the hypothesis that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the emitter (c'=c) does not "account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations". For that reason I call the latter hypothesis THE FUNDAMENTAL FALSEHOOD OF MODERN PHYSICS.

Pentcho Valev

[deleted]

Pentcho,

You argued: "... the hypothesis that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the emitter (c'=c) does not "account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations".

I am very sorry for having failed to convincingly explain my endnotes. Let's clarify what the velocities of the emitter and of light refer to.

You will certainly agree that the position of the emitter somehow relates to a chosen point of reference e.g. on earth. Therefore its velocity is also related to such chosen reference. The same applies for a sound-carrying medium like air and also for the hypothetical light-carrying medium.

If we assume space as a common to the whole universe system of mutual distances without known borders then we cannot attribute just one naturally preferred point of reference to it.

Let's now assume that the speed of light refers to the distance between the location of emission at the moment of emission and the location of arrival at the moment of arrival. Notice, only the distance between these two locations matters for the propagation of light in empty space. The motion of earth relative to the sun does not change that distance. Neither the velocity of emitter nor the velocity of the receiver/observer matters.

This explains the outcome of the experiment by Michelson: Space can be imagined behaving in this respect like a bilaterally infinite straight measuring line rather than a numbered line with a reference point zero.

Maybe it is helpful to remind of a mathematical peculiarity: infinity plus anything remains infinity. One needs infinite energy as to reach c. EEs like me are familiar with similar behavior in case of approaching ideal resonance.

I didn't yet find out whether or not the Lorentz/Einstein formalism is at least partially identical. However I guess, there is no reason to introduce length contraction, local time, and all that.

Eckard

Pentcho Valev

The Fundamental Falsehood of Modern Physics III

"For example relativity is one of the most robust and best-tested theories we've got. You can read about that in a paper by Clifford M Will. And yet when you compare what Einstein said with what some celebrity physicist tells you on the Discovery Channel, something doesn't add up. Space doesn't fall inwards like a waterfall, and light doesn't curve because spacetime is curved, it curves because "die Ausbreitungs-geschwindigkeit des Lichtes mit dem Orte variiert". That's in section 22 of Einstein's 1916 book Relativity: The Special and General Theory. It means "the speed of light varies with position". He said the speed of light was constant in 1905, but retracted that in 1911 and never went back."

An extremely dangerous text. It is easy to show that, if the speed of light "varies with position" in a gravitational field, then, in gravitation-free space, it varies with the speed of the observer, in violation of special relativity. See this video:

"The light is perceived to be falling in a gravitational field just like a mechanical object would. (...) The change in speed of light with change in height is dc/dh=g/c."

Integrating dc/dh=g/c gives:

c' = c(1 gh/c^2)

Equivalently, in gravitation-free space where a rocket of length h accelerates with acceleration g, a light signal emitted by the front end will be perceived by an observer at the back end to have a speed:

c' = c(1 gh/c^2) = c v

where v is the speed the observer has at the moment of reception of the light relative to the emitter at the moment of emission. Clearly, the speed of light varies with both the gravitational potential and the speed of the observer, just as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light.

Pentcho Valev

The Fundamental Falsehood of Modern Physics IV

In Big Brother's world, since 2+2=5 is true, the antithesis, 2+2=4, is unavoidably false:

George Orwell: "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?"

In Divine Albert's world educators have discovered that, if both thesis and antithesis are true, the destruction of students' rationality is so efficient that the supremacy of Divine Albert's Divine Theory is eternally guaranteed. So the majority of Einsteinians teach that the Michelson-Morley experiment gloriously confirmed the fundamental falsehood of modern physics - the assumption (taken from the ether theory) that THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS INDEPENDENT OF THE SPEED OF THE EMITTER - and so the repudiation of c'=c+v, the variable speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light, became unavoidable by the end of the 19th century:

"The conclusion of the Michelson-Morley experiment was that the speed of light was a constant c in any inertial frame. Why is this result so surprising? First, it invalidates the Galilean coordinate transformation. Note that with the frames as defined in the previous section, if light is travelling in the x' direction in frame O' with velocity c, then its speed in the O frame is, by the Galilean transform, c+v, not c as measured. This invalidates two thousand years of understanding of the nature of time and space. The only comparable discovery is the discovery that the earth isn't flat! The Michelson Morley experiment has inevitably brought about a profound change in our understanding of the world."

Faster Than the Speed of Light, Joao Magueijo: "A missile fired from a plane moves faster than one fired from the ground because the plane's speed adds to the missile's speed. If I throw something forward on a moving train, its speed with respect to the platform is the speed of that object plus that of the train. You might think that the same should happen to light: Light flashed from a train should travel faster. However, what the Michelson-Morley experiments showed was that this was not the case: Light always moves stubbornly at the same speed. This means that if I take a light ray and ask several observers moving with respect to each other to measure the speed of this light ray, they will all agree on the same apparent speed!"

The Curious History of Relativity: How Einstein's Theory of Gravity Was Lost and Found Again, Jean Eisenstaedt, pp. 17-19: "If, as Michelson's experiments showed, this theorem of the addition of speeds is not valid, in particular for light, then something is not right with our initial assumptions. (...) The most convincing solution physicists will find will be special relativity. Not much will remain of our initial hypotheses: neither Newton's absolute time nor the definition of speed will survive. But, above all, in this new kinematics a new physical constant will appear, c. It will no longer be possible to add two speeds without the intervention of c. No kinematics will be possible without c; no physics will be possible without c."

Yet some high-ranking Einsteinians teach the opposite: The Michelson-Morley experiment confirmed c'=c+v, the variable speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light, and refuted (at least in 1887) the fundamental falsehood of modern physics - the assumption (taken from the ether theory) that THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS INDEPENDENT OF THE SPEED OF THE EMITTER:

Pentcho Valev

« Previous Page Next Page »