Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: NO PHYSICS IS POSSIBLE WITHOUT CONSTANT SPEED OF LIGHT
Replies: 7   Last Post: Jun 23, 2013 3:26 PM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 Karl-Olav Nyberg Posts: 1,575 Registered: 12/6/04
Re: NO PHYSICS IS POSSIBLE WITHOUT CONSTANT SPEED OF LIGHT
Posted: Jun 18, 2013 6:25 PM

On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 9:58:09 AM UTC+2, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Einsteiniana's fundamental lie: At the end of the 19th century the Michelson-Morley experiment invalidated the principle of the addition of speeds established by Newton's theory so "it will no longer be possible to add two speeds without the intervention of c. No kinematics will be possible without c; no physics will be possible without c":
>
>
>
> http://www.berkeleyscience.com/relativity.htm
>
> "The conclusion of the Michelson-Morley experiment was that the speed of light was a constant c in any inertial frame. Why is this result so surprising? First, it invalidates the Galilean coordinate transformation. Note that with the frames as defined in the previous section, if light is travelling in the x' direction in frame O' with velocity c, then its speed in the O frame is, by the Galilean transform, c+v, not c as measured. This invalidates two thousand years of understanding of the nature of time and space. The only comparable discovery is the discovery that the earth isn't flat! The Michelson Morley experiment has inevitably brought about a profound change in our understanding of the world."
>
>
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-Speculation/dp/0738205257
>
> Faster Than the Speed of Light, Joao Magueijo: "A missile fired from a plane moves faster than one fired from the ground because the plane's speed adds to the missile's speed. If I throw something forward on a moving train, its speed with respect to the platform is the speed of that object plus that of the train. You might think that the same should happen to light: Light flashed from a train should travel faster. However, what the Michelson-Morley experiments showed was that this was not the case: Light always moves stubbornly at the same speed. This means that if I take a light ray and ask several observers moving with respect to each other to measure the speed of this light ray, they will all agree on the same apparent speed!"
>
>
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Curious-History-Relativity-Einsteins-Gravity/dp/product-description/0691118655
>
> The Curious History of Relativity: How Einstein's Theory of Gravity Was Lost and Found Again, Jean Eisenstaedt, pp. 17-19: "If, as Michelson's experiments showed, this theorem of the addition of speeds is not valid, in particular for light, then something is not right with our initial assumptions. (...) The most convincing solution physicists will find will be special relativity. Not much will remain of our initial hypotheses: neither Newton's absolute time nor the definition of speed will survive. But, above all, in this new kinematics a new physical constant will appear, c. It will no longer be possible to add two speeds without the intervention of c. No kinematics will be possible without c; no physics will be possible without c."
>
>
>
> In fact, the Michelson-Morley experiment CONFIRMED the principle of the addition of speeds established by Newton's theory:
>
>
>
> http://www.philoscience.unibe.ch/documents/kursarchiv/SS07/Norton.pdf
>
> John Norton: "These efforts were long misled by an exaggeration of the importance of one experiment, the Michelson-Morley experiment, even though Einstein later had trouble recalling if he even knew of the experiment prior to his 1905 paper. This one experiment, in isolation, has little force. Its null result happened to be fully compatible with Newton's own emission theory of light. Located in the context of late 19th century electrodynamics when ether-based, wave theories of light predominated, however, it presented a serious problem that exercised the greatest theoretician of the day."
>
>
>
> http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf
>
> John Norton: "In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues that reveal Einstein's serious consideration of an emission theory of light; and he gave us the crucial insight that Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity. Even today, this point needs emphasis. The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."
>
>
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
>
> "Relativity and Its Roots" by Banesh Hoffmann: "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."
>
>
>
> Is Jean Eisenstaedt right in claiming that "no kinematics will be possible without c; no physics will be possible without c" if the introduction of "c" is based on a lie? Yes he is. If you repeat a lie often enough it becomes the truth (Goebbels) and if the process lasts for as long as a century the lie-into-truth transformation gets irreversible.
>
>
>
> Pentcho Valev

Hei!

There is nothing you write that say c is a constant that can be proved or disapproved. We all know that the laws of nature haven't this proveness in it. These laws (laws of nature) only apply as long they ar verified. The moment they are unverified they no longer apply. However they can still be useful in the frame (domain) they are ment for. Newton is okay for understanding our daily life. Einstein for the greate universe, and the smaller "universe". The moment some can unverify Einstein, then we have another understanding of things.

KON

Date Subject Author
6/18/13 Pentcho Valev
6/18/13 Karl-Olav Nyberg
6/18/13 Brian Q. Hutchings
6/19/13 Pentcho Valev
6/20/13 Pentcho Valev
6/23/13 Brian Q. Hutchings
6/19/13 b92057@yahoo.com
6/19/13 Brian Q. Hutchings