Prev: Green's theorem
Next: GOD'S FINEST WEBSITE <<GenesisProof.com>>
From: Pentcho Valev on 2 May 2010 00:36
Newton's emission theory of light: The speed of light varies with both
the speed of the emitter (true) and the speed of the observer (true):

http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"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."

Maxwell's theory: The speed of light is independent of the speed of
the emitter (false) but varies with the speed of the observer (true):

http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-Stephen-Hawking/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."

http://www.solidarity-us.org/node/58
"Maxwell's theory of electricity and magnetism provides a successful
framework with which to study light. In this theory light is an
electromagnetic wave. Using Maxwell's equations one can compute the
speed of light. One finds that the speed of light is 300,000,000
meters (186,000 miles) per second. The question arises: which inertial
observer is this speed of light relative to? As in the previous
paragraph, two inertial observers traveling relative to each other
should observe DIFFERENT SPEEDS FOR THE SAME LIGHT WAVE."

Einstein's special relativity: The speed of light is independent of
both the speed of the emitter (false) and the speed of the observer
(false). In order to reconcile this with the formula:

(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

Einsteinians dishonestly teach that the WAVELENGTH varies with the
speed of the observer (absurd):

http://sampit.geol.sc.edu/Doppler.html
"Moving observer: A man is standing on the beach, watching the tide.
The waves are washing into the shore and over his feet with a constant
frequency and wavelength. However, if he begins walking out into the
ocean, the waves will begin hitting him more frequently, leading him
to perceive that the wavelength of the waves has decreased."

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/big_bang/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)."

All along Einstein had a guilty conscience - he knew that Newton's
emission theory of light is correct (insofar as the variability/
constancy of the speed of light is concerned) and that his deviation
from it (referred to below as a transition from discontinuous
particles to a continuous field) was fatal for contemporary physics:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Development_of_Our_Views_on_the_Composition_and_Essence_of_Radiation
The Development of Our Views on the Composition and Essence of
Radiation by Albert Einstein, 1909
"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. The purpose of the following
remarks is to justify this belief and to show that a profound change
in our views on the composition and essence of light is
imperative.....Then the electromagnetic fields that make up light no
longer appear as a state of a hypothetical medium, but rather as
independent entities that the light source gives off, just as in
Newton's emission theory of light......Relativity theory has changed
our views on light. Light is conceived not as a manifestation of the
state of some hypothetical medium, but rather as an independent entity
like matter. Moreover, this theory shares with the corpuscular theory
of light the unusual property that light carries inertial mass from
the emitting to the absorbing object."

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=317&Itemid=81&lecture_id=3576
John Stachel: "Einstein discussed the other side of the particle-field
dualism - get rid of fields and just have particles."
Albert Einstein 1954: "I consider it entirely possible that physics
cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous
structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air,
including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of
contemporary physics."
John Stachel's comment: "If I go down, everything goes down, ha ha,
hm, ha ha ha."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/genius/
"Genius Among Geniuses" by Thomas Levenson
"And then, in June, Einstein completes special relativity, which adds
a twist to the story: Einstein's March paper treated light as
particles, but special relativity sees light as a continuous field of
waves. Alice's Red Queen can accept many impossible things before
breakfast, but it takes a supremely confident mind to do so. Einstein,
age 26, sees light as wave and particle, picking the attribute he
needs to confront each problem in turn. Now that's tough."

Pentcho Valev wrote:

According to Newton's emission theory of light, the SPEED of light
varies with the speed of the observer.

According to Maxwell's theory, the SPEED of light varies with the
speed of the observer.

According to Einstein's special relativity, the WAVELENGTH of light
varies with the speed of the observer.

The assertion that the SPEED of light varies with the speed of the
observer is physically reasonable. The assertion that the WAVELENGTH
of light varies with the speed of the observer is absurd.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev(a)yahoo.com
From: Arindam Banerjee on 2 May 2010 01:40
On May 1, 2:29 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> According to Newton's emission theory of light, the SPEED of light
> varies with the speed of the observer.
>
> According to Maxwell's theory, the SPEED of light varies with the
> speed of the observer.
>
> According to Einstein's special relativity, the WAVELENGTH of light
> varies with the speed of the observer.
>
> The assertion that the SPEED of light varies with the speed of the
> observer is physically reasonable. The assertion that the WAVELENGTH
> of light varies with the speed of the observer is absurd.
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...(a)yahoo.com

Perfectly correct.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
From: Pentcho Valev on 3 May 2010 00:24
Einsteiniana's fundamental absurdities:

An infinitely long object can be trapped inside an infinitely short
container. So Einsteinians can gloriously obtain any decrease in the
object's volume:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/barn_pole.html
"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. Now someone takes the pole and tries to run (at nearly the
speed of light) through the barn with the pole horizontal. Special
Relativity (SR) says that a moving object is contracted in the
direction of motion: this is called the Lorentz Contraction. So, if
the pole is set in motion lengthwise, then it will contract in the
reference frame of a stationary observer.....So, as the pole passes
through the barn, there is an instant when it is completely within the
barn. At that instant, you close both doors simultaneously, with your
switch. Of course, you open them again pretty quickly, but at least
momentarily you had the contracted pole shut up in your barn. The
runner emerges from the far door unscathed.....If the doors are kept
shut the rod will obviously smash into the barn door at one end. If
the door withstands this the leading end of the rod will come to rest
in the frame of reference of the stationary observer. There can be no
such thing as a rigid rod in relativity so the trailing end will not
stop immediately and the rod will be compressed beyond the amount it
was Lorentz contracted. 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."

An Einsteinian travelling with the rivet sees the bug squashed. The
bug sees itself alive and kicking:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Relativ/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."

As two Einsteinians pass each other for the first time, either sees
the other's clock running SLOW (original absurdity). If, however, one
of the Einsteinians is nostalgic and wants to return and see his
brother again, on the second meeting he finds that the other
Einsteinian's clock has in fact been running FAST (superimposed
absurdity):

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES By A. Einstein June 30, 1905:
"...light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity
c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.
(...) From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at
the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in
the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved
with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B
the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B
lags behind the other which has remained at B by tv^2/2c^2 (up to
magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in
the journey from A to B. It is at once apparent that this result still
holds good if the clock moves from A to B in any polygonal line, and
also when the points A and B coincide. If we assume that the result
proved for a polygonal line is also valid for a continuously curved
line, we arrive at this result: If one of two synchronous clocks at A
is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity until it returns to
A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the clock which has remained
at rest the travelled clock on its arrival at A will be tv^2/2c^2
second slow."

Einsteinian clocks placed at different gravitational potentials run at
different rates. The effect is insensitive to the gravitational field
difference (the two clocks may experience virtually the same
gravitational field) and this makes the absurdity particularly
exciting:

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/02/scientists-obtain-highly-accurate-relativity-measurements.ars
"For example, if we synchronize two clocks, take one of them to the
top of a mountain for a while, and then bring it back to where the
other clock is, the clock that sat still will be running behind the
clock that was in the mountains - it was in a more accelerated frame,
and time passed more slowly there."

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/book.html
Chapter 14: "The equivalence principle has a striking consequence
concerning the behavior of clocks in a gravitational field. It implies
that higher clocks run faster than lower clocks. If you put a watch on
top of a tower, and then stand on the ground, you will see the watch
on the tower tick faster than an identical watch on your wrist. When
you take the watch down and compare it to the one on your wrist, it
will show more time elapsed."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev(a)yahoo.com
From: synthius2002 on 3 May 2010 18:04
> the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in
> the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved
> with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B

My old granny said;
"Of course the person who travels around the universe near the speed
of light will be younger. Traveling and seeing the sights makes you
feel great!"

Nils
From: Pentcho Valev on 4 May 2010 00:20
Einsteiniana's absurdities, education, and the future of physics:

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a909857880
Peter Hayes "The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock
Paradox" : Social Epistemology, Volume 23, Issue 1 January 2009, pages
57-78
"The prediction that clocks will move at different rates is
particularly well known, and the problem of explaining how this can be
so without violating the principle of relativity is particularly
obvious. The clock paradox, however, is only one of a number of simple
objections that have been raised to different aspects of Einstein's
theory of relativity. (Much of this criticism is quite apart from and
often predates the apparent contradiction between relativity theory
and quantum mechanics.) It is rare to find any attempt at a detailed
rebuttal of these criticisms by professional physicists. However,
physicists do sometimes give a general response to criticisms that
relativity theory is syncretic by asserting that Einstein is logically
consistent, but that to explain why is so difficult that critics lack
the capacity to understand the argument. In this way, the handy claim
that there are unspecified, highly complex resolutions of simple
apparent inconsistencies in the theory can be linked to the charge
that antirelativists have only a shallow understanding of the matter,
probably gleaned from misleading popular accounts of the theory. (...)
The argument for complexity reverses the scientific preference for
simplicity. Faced with obvious inconsistencies, the simple response is
to conclude that Einstein's claims for the explanatory scope of the
special and general theory are overstated. To conclude instead that
that relativity theory is right for reasons that are highly complex is
to replace Occam's razor with a potato masher. (...) The defence of
complexity implies that the novice wishing to enter the profession of
theoretical physics must accept relativity on faith. It implicitly
concedes that, without an understanding of relativity theory's higher
complexities, it appears illogical, which means that popular
"explanations" of relativity are necessarily misleading. But given
Einstein's fame, physicists do not approach the theory for the first
time once they have developed their expertise. Rather, they are
exposed to and probably examined on popular explanations of relativity
in their early training. How are youngsters new to the discipline
meant to respond to these accounts? Are they misled by false
explanations and only later inculcated with true ones? What happens to
those who are not misled? Are they supposed to accept relativity
merely on the grounds of authority? The argument of complexity
suggests that to pass the first steps necessary to join the physics
profession, students must either be willing to suspend disbelief and
go along with a theory that appears illogical; or fail to notice the
apparent inconsistencies in the theory; or notice the inconsistencies
and maintain a guilty silence in the belief that this merely shows
that they are unable to understand the theory. 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."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/nov/22/schools.g2
"We are nearing the end of the "World Year of Physics", otherwise
known as Einstein Year, as it is the centenary of his annus mirabilis
in which he made three incredible breakthroughs, including special
relativity. In fact, it was 100 years ago yesterday that he published
the most famous equation in the history of physics: E=mc2. But instead
of celebrating, physicists are in mourning after a report showed a
dramatic decline in the number of pupils studying physics at school.
The number taking A-level physics has dropped by 38% over the past 15
years, a catastrophic meltdown that is set to continue over the next
few years. The report warns that a shortage of physics teachers and a
lack of interest from pupils could mean the end of physics in state
schools. Thereafter, physics would be restricted to only those
students who could afford to go to posh schools. Britain was the home
of Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday and Paul Dirac, and Brits made world-
class contributions to understanding gravity, quantum physics and
electromagnetism - and yet the British physicist is now facing
extinction. But so what? Physicists are not as cuddly as pandas, so
who cares if we disappear?"

http://archives.lesechos.fr/archives/2004/LesEchos/19077-80-ECH.htm
"Physicien au CEA, professeur et auteur, Etienne Klein s'inquiète des
relations de plus en plus conflictuelles entre la science et la
société. (...) « Je me demande si nous aurons encore des physiciens
dans trente ou quarante ans », remarque ce touche-à-tout aux multiples
centres d'intérêt : la constitution de la matière, le temps, les
relations entre science et philosophie. (...) Etienne Klein n'est pas
optimiste. Selon lui, il se pourrait bien que l'idée de progrès soit
tout bonnement « en train de mourir sous nos yeux ». (...) Cette
perception d'une « science mortifère » se double d'une « culture du
ressenti », sorte de sésame passe-partout utilisé pour justifier
l'acquisition, l'évaluation ou le rejet des connaissances. « J'ai eu à
faire récemment à un jeune étudiant en sciences qui n'était pas
d'accord avec la théorie de la relativité d'Einstein pour une raison
étonnante : il m'a dit qu'il ne la sentait pas », indique-t-il en
riant à moitié. Au bout du compte, ce soupçon d'imposture permanente
débouche sur une idée simple qui fait des ravages : « En sciences
comme ailleurs, tout est relatif. » Dans ce contexte, la vulgarisation
est d'un maigre secours car « la pédagogie ajoute du bruit et augmente
la confusion »."

Pentcho Valev wrote:

Einsteiniana's fundamental absurdities:

An infinitely long object can be trapped inside an infinitely short
container. So Einsteinians can gloriously obtain any decrease in the
object's volume:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/barn_pole.html
"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. Now someone takes the pole and tries to run (at nearly the
speed of light) through the barn with the pole horizontal. Special
Relativity (SR) says that a moving object is contracted in the
direction of motion: this is called the Lorentz Contraction. So, if
the pole is set in motion lengthwise, then it will contract in the
reference frame of a stationary observer.....So, as the pole passes
through the barn, there is an instant when it is completely within the
barn. At that instant, you close both doors simultaneously, with your
switch. Of course, you open them again pretty quickly, but at least
momentarily you had the contracted pole shut up in your barn. The
runner emerges from the far door unscathed.....If the doors are kept
shut the rod will obviously smash into the barn door at one end. If
the door withstands this the leading end of the rod will come to rest
in the frame of reference of the stationary observer. There can be no
such thing as a rigid rod in relativity so the trailing end will not
stop immediately and the rod will be compressed beyond the amount it
was Lorentz contracted. 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."

An Einsteinian travelling with the rivet sees the bug squashed. The
bug sees itself alive and kicking:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Relativ/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."

As two Einsteinians pass each other for the first time, either sees
the other's clock running SLOW (original absurdity). If, however, one
of the Einsteinians is nostalgic and wants to return and see his
brother again, on the second meeting he finds that the other
Einsteinian's clock has in fact been running FAST (superimposed
absurdity):

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES By A. Einstein June 30, 1905:
"...light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity
c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.
(...) From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at
the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in
the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved
with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B
the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B
lags behind the other which has remained at B by tv^2/2c^2 (up to
magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in
the journey from A to B. It is at once apparent that this result still
holds good if the clock moves from A to B in any polygonal line, and
also when the points A and B coincide. If we assume that the result
proved for a polygonal line is also valid for a continuously curved
line, we arrive at this result: If one of two synchronous clocks at A
is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity until it returns to
A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the clock which has remained
at rest the travelled clock on its arrival at A will be tv^2/2c^2
second slow."

Einsteinian clocks placed at different gravitational potentials run at
different rates. The effect is insensitive to the gravitational field
difference (the two clocks may experience virtually the same
gravitational field) and this makes the absurdity particularly
exciting:

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/02/scientists-obtain-highly-accurate-relativity-measurements.ars
"For example, if we synchronize two clocks, take one of them to the
top of a mountain for a while, and then bring it back to where the
other clock is, the clock that sat still will be running behind the
clock that was in the mountains - it was in a more accelerated frame,
and time passed more slowly there."

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/book.html
Chapter 14: "The equivalence principle has a striking consequence
concerning the behavior of clocks in a gravitational field. It implies
that higher clocks run faster than lower clocks. If you put a watch on
top of a tower, and then stand on the ground, you will see the watch
on the tower tick faster than an identical watch on your wrist. When
you take the watch down and compare it to the one on your wrist, it
will show more time elapsed."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev(a)yahoo.com
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Green's theorem
Next: GOD'S FINEST WEBSITE <<GenesisProof.com>>