🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

Article View: sci.physics.relativity
Article #558

Re: NEWTON AND MAXWELL REASONABLE, EINSTEIN ABSURD

#558
From: Pentcho Valev
Date: Sun, 02 May 2010 04:31
135 lines
8696 bytes
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@yahoo.com
Technical Details
Message-ID: <645e63d0-dc81-4be3-a205-31fe50f03e53@q30g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!q30g2000yqd.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
References: <edfb4363-e176-480d-af2c-22a7bb21e7a2@e2g2000yqn.googlegroups.com> <5qmdnfMkbP_2JUbWnZ2dnUVZ_gUAAAAA@mchsi.com> <hrhvh3$dge$5@news.eternal-september.org>

Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Thread: 237b8ad48,f6aa99cbe02299a1
X-Google-Attributes: gid237b8ad48,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!q30g2000yqd.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique,fr.sci.astrophysique
Subject: Re: NEWTON AND MAXWELL REASONABLE, EINSTEIN ABSURD
Date: Sat, 1 May 2010 21:31:06 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 135
Message-ID: <645e63d0-dc81-4be3-a205-31fe50f03e53@q30g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
References: <edfb4363-e176-480d-af2c-22a7bb21e7a2@e2g2000yqn.googlegroups.com> 
 <5qmdnfMkbP_2JUbWnZ2dnUVZ_gUAAAAA@mchsi.com> <hrhvh3$dge$5@news.eternal-september.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 84.54.163.41
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1272774666 7842 127.0.0.1 (2 May 2010 04:31:06 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 2 May 2010 04:31:06 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: q30g2000yqd.googlegroups.com; posting-host=84.54.163.41; 
 posting-account=Lz-LbgoAAABPDavKeW-eYeobwLHD_cvQ
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; 
 AskTB5.5),gzip(gfe)