Discussion:
Big Brother's 2+2=5 and Einstein's Constant Speed of Light
(trop ancien pour répondre)
Pentcho Valev
2017-05-09 10:16:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"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?"
https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwell/george/o79n/chapter1.7.html

Einstein's constancy of the speed of light is even more idiotic than 2+2=5. Consider a light source emitting a series of pulses equally distanced from one another. A stationary observer (receiver) measures the frequency of the pulses:

Loading Image...

The observer starts moving with constant speed towards the light source - the measured frequency increases:

Loading Image...

Since the measured frequency increases, the speed of the pulses relative to the observer increases as well, in accordance with the formula

(measured frequency) = (speed of the pulses relative to the observer)/(distance between the pulses)

So the speed of light is OBVIOUSLY VARIABLE and yet Einsteinians have been teaching, for more than a century, that it is constant. "And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. [...] ...if the mind itself is controllable what then?"

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
2017-05-09 17:47:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
The speed of light varies with the speed of the observer - this is so obvious that Einsteinians often suggest it explicitly, thereby unconsciously repudiating Einstein's relativity:

Albert Einstein Institute: "In this particular animation

http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_detector_blue.gif

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." http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler

Since "four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses", the speed of the pulses relative to the receiver (observer) is greater than their speed relative to the source, in violation of Einstein's relativity.

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
2017-05-10 06:03:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Special relativity was derived from one experimentally observed fact, that light always travels at the same speed (in a vacuum), which we'll call c, which is about 300,000 kilometres per second. That's always at the same speed relative to you. Even if you're travelling at half the speed of light yourself, light still travels past you at speed c relative to you. This makes no sense. For it to be true, something has to be seriously wrong with our 'normal' understanding of physics. And it is." https://finitismforever.wordpress.com/2017/02/26/354/

That is, for Einstein's nonsense to be true, normality was abandoned - science embraced abnormal space and time where nonsense and truth coincided.

The problem is that "experimentally observed fact" is a blatant lie. The relevant experiment, that of Michelson-Morley, was compatible with the variable speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light and, prior to FitzGerald and Lorentz advancing the ad hoc length contraction hypothesis, incompatible with the constant (independent of the speed of the light source) speed of light predicted by the ether theory and later adopted by Einstein as his 1905 second ("light") postulate:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/12289/1/Einstein_Discover.pdf
"To it, we should add that the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment was unhelpful and possibly counter-productive in Einstein's investigations of an emission theory of light, for the null result is predicted by an emission theory."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory
"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)."

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

Pentcho Valev

Loading...