Article View: sci.physics.relativity
Article #558Re: NEWTON AND MAXWELL REASONABLE, EINSTEIN ABSURD
From: Pentcho Valev
Date: Sun, 02 May 2010 04:31
Date: Sun, 02 May 2010 04:31
135 lines
8696 bytes
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-mailReferences:
<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)