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: TWO LIES BEHIND EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY
Replies: 2   Last Post: Feb 17, 2014 11:28 AM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 thenewcalculus@gmail.com Posts: 1,361 Registered: 11/1/13
Re: TWO LIES BEHIND EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY
Posted: Feb 16, 2014 4:36 AM

On Sunday, February 16, 2014 10:47:40 AM UTC+2, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Einstein's relativity would be long forgotten if the constant repetition of the following two lies had not converted them into absolute truths:
>
>
>
> 1. Maxwell's 19th century electromagnetic theory predicted that the speed of light does not depend on the speed of the observer measuring it. (The truth is that Maxwell's theory predicted that the speed of light VARIES with the speed of the observer.)
>
>
>
> 2. The Michelson-Morley experiment showed that the speed of light does not depend on the speed of the observer measuring it. (The truth is that in 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment unequivocally showed that the speed of light DOES DEPEND on the speed of the observer, as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light.)
>
>
>
> Examples:
>
>
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-mc2-Should-Care/dp/0306817586
>
> Why Does E=mc2?: (And Why Should We Care?), Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw, p. 91: "...Maxwell's brilliant synthesis of the experimental results of Faraday and others strongly suggested that the speed of light should be the same for all observers. This conclusion was supported by the experimental result of Michelson and Morley, and taken at face value by Einstein."
>
>
>
> http://www.lecture-notes.co.uk/susskind/special-relativity/lecture-1/principles-of-special-relativity/
>
> Leonard Susskind: "One of the predictions of Maxwell's equations is that the velocity of electromagnetic waves, or light, is always measured to have the same value, regardless of the frame in which it is measured. (...) So, in Galilean relativity, we have c'=c-v and the speed of light in the moving frame should be slower than in the stationary frame, directly contradicting Maxwell. Scientists before Einstein thought that Galilean relativity was correct and so supposed that there had to exist a special, universal frame (called the aether) in which Maxwell's equations would be correct. However, over time and many experiments (including Michelson-Morley) it was shown that the speed of light did not depend on the velocity of the observer measuring it, so that c'=c."
>
>
>
> http://cfile205.uf.daum.net/attach/141EBD484EE5A30219CDD4
>
> The Elegant Universe, Brian Greene, p. 19: "If she fires the laser toward you - and if you had the appropriate measuring equipment - you would find that the speed of approach of the photons in the beam is 670 million miles per hour. But what if you run away, as you did when faced with the prospect of playing catch with a hand grenade? What speed will you now measure for the approaching photons? To make things more compelling, imagine that you can hitch a ride on the starship Enterprise and zip away from your friend at, say, 100 million miles per hour. Following the reasoning based on the traditional Newtonian worldview, since you are now speeding away, you would expect to measure a slower speed for the oncoming photons. Specifically, you would expect to find them approaching you at (670 million miles per hour - 100 million miles per hour =) 570 million miles per hour. Mounting evidence from a variety of experiments dating back as far as the 1880s, as well as careful analysis and interpretation of Maxwell's electromagnetic theory of light, slowly convinced the scientific community that, in fact, this is not what you will see. Even though you are retreating, you will still measure the speed of the approaching photons as 670 million miles per hour, not a bit less. Although at first it sounds completely ridiculous, unlike what happens if one runs from an oncoming baseball, grenade, or avalanche, the speed of approaching photons is always 670 million miles per hour. The same is true if you run toward oncoming photons or chase after them - their speed of approach or recession is completely unchanged; they still appear to travel at 670 million miles per hour. Regardless of relative motion between the source of photons and the observer, the speed of light is always the same."
>
>
>
> The two lies are taught by 99% of the Einsteinians. Only 1%, driven by doublethink, teach the truth from time to time:
>
>
>
> http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/Chasing.pdf
>
> John Norton: "That [Maxwell's] theory allows light to slow and be frozen in the frame of reference of a sufficiently rapidly moving observer."
>
>
>
>
> Gabrielle Bonnet, École Normale Supérieure de Lyon: "Les équations de Maxwell font en particulier intervenir une constante, c, qui est la vitesse de la lumière dans le vide. Par un changement de référentiel classique, si c est la vitesse de la lumière dans le vide dans un premier référentiel, et si on se place désormais dans un nouveau référentiel en translation par rapport au premier à la vitesse constante v, la lumière devrait désormais aller à la vitesse c-v si elle se déplace dans la direction et le sens de v, et à la vitesse c+v si elle se déplace dans le sens contraire."
>
>
>
> 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.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."
>
>
>
>
> "Relativity and Its Roots", 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.
>
>
>
> 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.ca/Introduction-relativit%C3%A9-James-H-Smith/dp/B003YEIA3S
>
> James H. Smith, "Introduction à la relativité", édition française dirigée par Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond, pp. 39-41: "Si la lumière était un flot de particules mécaniques obéissant aux lois de la mécanique, il n'y aurait aucune difficulté à comprendre les résultats de l'expérience de Michelson-Morley.... Supposons, par exemple, qu'une fusée se déplace avec une vitesse (1/2)c par rapport à un observateur et qu'un rayon de lumière parte de son nez. Si la vitesse de la lumière signifiait vitesse des "particules" de la lumière par rapport à leur source, alors ces "particules" de lumière se déplaceraient à la vitesse c/2+c=(3/2)c par rapport à l'observateur. Mais ce comportement ne ressemble pas du tout à celui d'une onde, car les ondes se propagent à une certaine vitesse par rapport au milieu dans lequel elles se développent et non pas à une certaine vitesse par rapport à leur source. (...) Il nous faut insister sur le fait suivant: QUAND EINSTEIN PROPOSA QUE LA VITESSE DE LA LUMIÈRE SOIT INDÉPENDANTE DE CELLE DE LA SOURCE, IL N'EN EXISTAIT AUCUNE PREUVE EXPÉRIMENTALE."
>
>
>
> Pentcho Valev

Here is a brilliant article by a man who resolved d'Alembert's Paradox:

https://claesjohnsonmathscience.wordpress.com/article/did-einstein-not-understand-math-yvfu3xg7d7wt-70/c

You can gauge the IQ of an individual by his quotes:

Let me start off with the ones I like:

"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough"

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."

"Education is what remains after one has forgotten everything he learned in school."

And now for the other side of Einstein:

"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts."

"There is no aether according to the special theory of relativity (1905)"

"There is an aether according to the general theory of relativity (1920)"

And here's why he was awarded the prize:

The ROYAL SWEDISH ACADEMY of SCIENCES has at its assembly held on November 9, 1921, an accordance with the stipulation in the will and testament of Alfred Nobel, decided to independent of the value that (after eventual confirmation) may be credited to the relativity and gravitational theory bestow the prize that of 1921 is awarded to the person in the field of physics who has made the most important discovery or invention to Albert Einstein for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect.

BTW: Einstein never had an IQ test, yet millions of morons call him a genius! Lol

Date Subject Author
2/16/14 Pentcho Valev
2/16/14 thenewcalculus@gmail.com
2/17/14 Pentcho Valev