<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Forum  

Science Predicated on the False Constancy of the Speed of Light

January 8 2018 at 7:51 PM
Pentcho Valev 

 
"The whole of physics is predicated on the constancy of the speed of light," Joao Magueijo, a cosmologist at Imperial College London and pioneer of the theory of variable light speed, told Motherboard. https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/8q87gk/light-speed-slowed

And the speed of light is OBVIOUSLY VARIABLE:

"Doppler effect - when an observer moves towards a stationary source. ...the velocity of the wave relative to the observer is faster than that when it is still." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE

"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'/λ=(V+Vo)/λ." http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp06/class19/class19_doppler.html

"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." http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php

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:

Stationary receiver: [linked image]

Moving receiver: [linked image]

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." [END OF QUOTATION] http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler

"Four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses" means that the speed of the pulses relative to the moving receiver is greater than their speed relative to the source, in violation of Einstein's relativity.

That the speed of light is variable, not constant, was proved by the Michelson-Morley experiment in 1887:

Wikipedia: "Emission theory, also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887. [...] The name most often associated with emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then expect light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed of the distant emitter (c ± v)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory

The analysis of the above information unavoidably leads to the following conclusion:

In 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment UNEQUIVOCALLY confirmed the variable speed of light posited by Newton's emission theory of light and refuted the constant (independent of the speed of the light source) speed of light posited by the ether theory and later adopted by Einstein as his 1905 second postulate.

Banesh Hoffmann says essentially the same:

Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, 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." https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768

Here is the short truth about the Michelson-Morley experiment:

John Norton: "The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE." http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf

Pentcho Valev

 
 Respond to this message   
AuthorReply
Pentcho Valev

Re: Science Predicated on the False Constancy of the Speed of Light

January 9 2018, 7:15 AM 

The constancy of the speed of light is obviously nonsense - even Einstein seems to have known that:

John Stachel: "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." https://history.aip.org/history/exhibits/einstein/essay-einstein-relativity.htm

Yet theoretical physics is almost entirely based on Einstein's nonsense:

"The speaker Joao Magueijo, is a Reader in Theoretical Physics at Imperial College, London and author of Faster Than the Speed of Light: The Story of a Scientific Speculation. He opened by explaining how Einstein's theory of relativity is the foundation of every other theory in modern physics and that the assumption that the speed of light is constant is the foundation of that theory. Thus a constant speed of light is embedded in all of modern physics and to propose a varying speed of light (VSL) is worse than swearing! It is like proposing a language without vowels." http://www.thegreatdebate.org.uk/VSLRevPrnt.html

"...Dr. Magueijo said. "We need to drop a postulate, perhaps the constancy of the speed of light." http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/31/science/e-and-mc2-equality-it-seems-is-relative.html

"The whole of physics is predicated on the constancy of the speed of light," Joao Magueijo, a cosmologist at Imperial College London and pioneer of the theory of variable light speed, told Motherboard. "So we had to find ways to change the speed of light without wrecking the whole thing too much." https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/8q87gk/light-speed-slowed

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." http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-Speculation/dp/0738205257

Pentcho Valev

 
 
jz

Re: Science Predicated on the False Constancy of the Speed of Light

January 9 2018, 11:00 AM 

>>> "Four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses" means
that the speed of the pulses relative to the moving receiver is greater than their speed relative
to the source, in violation of Einstein's relativity.

One can not conclude to this violation without taking the relativity effects into account.
Which has not been done here, so the conclusion is false.
When considering special relativity there is no violation.

According to wikipedia.org:
Although there are still proponents of the emission theory outside the scientific mainstream,
this theory is considered to be conclusively discredited by most scientists.

 
 
Pentcho Valev

Re: Science Predicated on the False Constancy of the Speed of Light

January 9 2018, 12:33 PM 

"One can not conclude to this violation without taking the relativity effects into account. Which has not been done here"

But was done before, many times. See this for instance:

"Einsteinians may wish to introduce relativistic corrections (time dilation), in an attempt to save Divine Albert's Divine Theory. The effect would be small and, to their surprise, in the unfavorable direction. The speed of the moving receiver is (1/3)c so gamma is 1.05. Accordingly, the corrected f' is (1.05)*(4/3) s^(-1) and the corrected c' is (1.05)*(400000) km/s. Einstein's relativity is even more violated." http://www.network54.com/Forum/304711/thread/1501148571/last-1501286499/Doppler+Unequivocally+Refutes+Einstein


 
 
jz

Re: Science Predicated on the False Constancy of the Speed of Light

January 9 2018, 2:36 PM 

>>> But was done before, many times.

Should be done as follows:

Observer in rest relative to the light source sees that frequency is f=c/d.

Suppose the observer moves in the direction of the source at speed v = 1/3*c (gam=1.06).
According to special relativity the distances between the pulses looks
smaller (contracted) for the observer: d'=d/gam.
Then the observer and the next pulse meet after time t = (d'-1/3*ct)/c.
NOTE that the pulses move at c relative to the moving observer, in agreement with SRT.

Result: ct + 1/3*ct = d' ==> t = d'/(4/3*c) ==> f'= 4/3*gam*f= 1.41*f.
This result can be written as f'= f*sqrt((1+1/3)/(1-1/3)), known as
the relativistic doppler effect.

When the observer moves away from the light source one will find:
f'= 2/3*gam*f = 0.71*f = f*sqrt((1-1/3)/(1+1/3)).

Applying SR correctly and there is no violation.


 
 
Anonymous

Re: Science Predicated on the False Constancy of the Speed of Light

January 9 2018, 6:11 PM 

jz you should be aware that Pentcho is not a normal person, but a moronic robot. Therefore arguments and logic have no effect on him.

 
 
Anonymous

Re: Science Predicated on the False Constancy of the Speed of Light

January 9 2018, 6:36 PM 


>(contracted) for the observer: d'=d/gam

but u neglected t' so that means- it's incorrect to use d' with t - COZ d' goes with t' only & d goes with t only

 
 
Amigo

Re: Science Predicated on the False Constancy of the Speed of Light

January 9 2018, 9:23 PM 


>>>but u neglected t' so that means- it's incorrect to use d' with t - COZ d' goes with t' only & d goes with t only

No. It is not possible - in Einstein's theory of special relativity - to utilize length contraction & time dilation - at the same time - in the same calculation - because -----> the two effects would cancel each other out =======>>>https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=48025.0

 
 
jz

Re: Science Predicated on the False Constancy of the Speed of Light

January 10 2018, 6:15 AM 

>>> but u neglected t' so that means- it's incorrect to use d' with t - COZ d' goes with t' only & d goes with t only

I agree it may be confusing to call the observation of the distances between the pulses of the moving
observer d'(=d/gam). But it is his observation, so here d' goes with t.
And d goes with the source, the sender of the pulses.

 
 
Anonym

Re: Science Predicated on the False Constancy of the Speed of Light

January 10 2018, 9:43 AM 

lying bitch. the time dilation contradicts length contraction. the clock of the source is slowed down during blue doppler effect.

 
 
Anonym

Re: Science Predicated on the False Constancy of the Speed of Light

January 11 2018, 1:11 PM 

what's up?

 
 
Anony

Re: Science Predicated on the False Constancy of the Speed of Light

January 13 2018, 6:26 PM 


 
 
Johannes Harder Andersen

Re: Science Predicated on the False Constancy of the Speed of Light

January 14 2018, 4:36 PM 


 
 
Johannes Harder Andersen

Re: Science Predicated on the False Constancy of the Speed of Light

January 14 2018, 4:36 PM 


 
 
Johannes Harder Andersen

Re: Science Predicated on the False Constancy of the Speed of Light

January 14 2018, 4:45 PM 

Falsify-ability

Speed of light could be wrong in two ways:
1. Not constant.
2. Constant but wrong constant.

But it turns out that this can be reduced to just one way. Why?
If there is consensus that speed of light is constant, then it doesn't matter what the constant is decided to be. It can be set to any number you like = 7. The rest follows from that. The only falsify-ability that is left will be whether speed of light is constant or variable.


 
 
 
  Respond to this message   
  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Forum  
 Copyright © 1999-2018 Network54. All rights reserved.   Terms of Use   Privacy Statement