﻿ Arbitrarily Variable Length: the Universal Fudge Factor in Einstein's Relativity
Discussion:
Arbitrarily Variable Length: the Universal Fudge Factor in Einstein's Relativity
(trop ancien pour répondre)
Pentcho Valev
2018-12-05 12:24:33 UTC
The speed of light either depends on the speed of the emitter (Newton's theory) or is independent (ether theory and Einstein's relativity). Where is the truth? The answer was given, implicitly, in 1887. Dependence proved directly. Independence, "without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations", disproved:

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

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

Note that, "without recourse to contracting lengths", the invariable (independent of the speed of the emitter) speed of light is disproved by the Michelson-Morley experiment while Newton's variable speed of light is proved. The arbitrary introduction of "contracting lengths" reverses the situation: now Newton's variable speed of light is disproved while the invariable speed of light, posited by the ether theory and later adopted by Einstein as his 1905 second postulate, is gloriously proved. This blatant fraud marked the beginning of the post-truth era in science, long time ago.

An even more striking example of arbitrarily variable length:

The observer (receiver) starts moving towards the light source. Pulses or wavecrests now hit him more frequently (the frequency he measures increases), which means that the speed of the light relative to the observer (receiver) increases as well, in violation of Einstein's relativity:

"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."

"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

So Einstein's relativity is obviously false and yet there is an idiotic ad hoc assumption that saves it: When the initially stationary observer starts moving towards the light source with speed v, his motion somehow changes the wavelength of the incoming light, from λ to λ'=λc/(c+v), or the distance between the pulses.

In other words: Einsteinians save Einstein's original nonsense

"The speed of light is invariable"

by implicitly superimposing an even greater nonsense:

"The motion of the observer changes the wavelength of the incoming light".

Needless to say, the motion of the observer CANNOT change the wavelength of the incoming light. The idiocy is too great, even for the standards of Einstein's schizophrenic world, so Einsteinians don't discuss it explicitly. Here are exceptions (these Einsteinians are extremely insane and teach that the motion of the observer changes the wavelength even in the case of sound waves):

Professor Martin White, UC Berkeley: "...the sound waves have a fixed wavelength (distance between two crests or two troughs) only if you're not moving relative to the source of the sound. If you are moving away from the source (or equivalently it is receding from you) then each crest will take a little longer to reach you, and so you'll perceive a longer wavelength. Similarly if you're approaching the source, then you'll be meeting each crest a little earlier, and so you'll perceive a shorter wavelength. [...] The same principle applies for light as well as for sound. In detail the amount of shift depends a little differently on the speed, since we have to do the calculation in the context of special relativity. But in general it's just the same: if you're approaching a light source you see shorter wavelengths (a blue-shift), while if you're moving away you see longer wavelengths (a red-shift)." http://w.astro.berkeley.edu/~mwhite/darkmatter/dopplershift.html

John Norton: "Every sound or light wave has a particular frequency and wavelength. In sound, they determine the pitch; in light they determine the color. 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)." http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/big_bang_observed/index.html

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
2018-12-05 17:21:45 UTC
Einsteinians teach that light pulses or wavecrests bunch up (the wavelength decreases) in front of an emitter moving towards a receiver:

Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 3: "Now imagine a source of light at a constant distance from us, such as a star, emitting waves of light at a constant wavelength. Obviously the wavelength of the waves we receive will be the same as the wavelength at which they are emitted (the gravitational field of the galaxy will not be large enough to have a significant effect). Suppose now that the source starts moving toward us. When the source emits the next wave crest it will be nearer to us, so the distance between wave crests will be smaller than when the star was stationary." http://www.fisica.net/relatividade/stephen_hawking_a_brief_history_of_time.pdf

Light pulses don't bunch up (the wavelength does not decrease) - bunching up obviously violates the principle of relativity. Rather, the speed of light VARIES with the speed of the emitter, as posited by Newton's theory and proved (implicitly) by the Michelson-Morley experiment in 1887.

Einstein's 1905 axiom

"The speed of light is invariable"

is false. In future physics it will be replaced with the correct axiom

"The wavelength of light is invariable"

Pentcho Valev