gratifiant > sci.* > sci.physique

Pentcho Valev (31/03/2019, 12h25)
Quotation: "The theory of special relativity is nothing more than two axioms:

1/ There is no preferred or absolute frame of reference. That means that velocity is not an absolute quantity, but must be referenced to something.

2/ All observers measure the same vacuum speed of light.

From these two axioms, you can construct a logical chain of consequences, which are best performed using the language of mathematics. Nevertheless, the theory itself is just the two axioms stated above.

Therefore, if you were to question the validity of the theory, you need only try to disprove one of the two axioms.

The first axiom is quite robust. It was first posited by Galileo and is often referred to as Galilean relativity. It just boils down to the fact that we can add velocities, which most people have adopted as intuition. That means there is very little room to question the first axiom.

The second axiom is usually where all the doubters like to hang their hats.A consequence of the second axiom is that time itself must be relative. Many people have trouble with this concept." [end of quotation]

The second axiom is OBVIOUSLY FALSE:

Stationary light source, moving receiver:

The speed of the light pulses as measured by the source is

c = df

where d is the distance between the pulses and f is the frequency measured by the source. The speed of the pulses as measured by the receiver is

c'= df' > c

where f' > f is the frequency measured by the receiver.

The metastases of Einstein's 1905 false axiom overwhelmed and eventually killed fundamental physics - it leads a zombie life nowadays:

"The speaker Joao Magueijo, is a Reader in Theoretical Physics at Imperial College, London and author of Faster Than the Speed of Light: The Story of a Scientific Speculation. He opened by explaining how Einstein's theory of relativity is the foundation of every other theory in modern physics and that the assumption that the speed of light is constant is the foundation of that theory. Thus a constant speed of light is embedded in all of modern physics and to propose a varying speed of light (VSL) is worse than swearing!It is like proposing a language without vowels."

Future physics will be based on the correct axiom

"For a given emitter, he wavelength of light is invariable".

Here are five important conclusions validly deducible from this axiom:

Premise 1: The wavelength of light is invariable.

Premise 2: The formula (frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength) is correct.

Conclusion 1: Any frequency shift entails (is caused by) a speed-of-light shift.

Conclusion 2: If the emitter and the observer (receiver) travel towards each other with relative speed v, the speed of light as measured by the observer is c' = c+v.

Conclusion 3: Spacetime is an absurdity. Gravitational waves (ripples in spacetime) don't exist - LIGO conspirators fake them.

Conclusion 4: Light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as ordinary falling bodies - near Earth's surface the accelerations of falling photons is g = 9.8 m/s^2. Accordingly, there is no gravitational time dilation - Einstein's general relativity is nonsense.

Conclusion 5: The Hubble redshift is due to light slowing down as it travels through vacuum. The universe is STATIC, not expanding.

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev (31/03/2019, 13h59)
Deduction from clearly defined axioms (postulates) is the only reasonable method in fundamental physics:

"By a theory I shall mean the deductive closure of a set of theoretical postulates together with an appropriate set of auxiliary hypotheses; that is, everything that can be deduced from this set." W. H. Newton-Smith, THE RATIONALITY OF SCIENCE, p. 199

Einstein offers essentially the same definition here:

Albert Einstein: "From a systematic theoretical point of view, we may imagine the process of evolution of an empirical science to be a continuous process of induction. Theories are evolved and are expressed in short compass as statements of a large number of individual observations in the form of empirical laws, from which the general laws can be ascertained by comparison.Regarded in this way, the development of a science bears some resemblance to the compilation of a classified catalogue. It is, as it were, a purely empirical enterprise. But this point of view by no means embraces the whole of the actual process ; for it slurs over the important part played by intuition and deductive thought in the development of an exact science. As soonas a science has emerged from its initial stages, theoretical advances areno longer achieved merely by a process of arrangement. Guided by empiricaldata, the investigator rather develops a system of thought which, in general, is built up logically from a small number of fundamental assumptions, the so-called axioms."

Two points should be noted:

1. The axioms (postulates), clearly defined, are indispensable.

2. The results of the theory are DEDUCED from AXIOMS, not guessed as Feynman used to teach:

Richard Feynman: "Dirac discovered the correct laws for relativity quantum mechanics simply by guessing the equation. The method of guessing the equation seems to be a pretty effective way of guessing new laws."

The crucial questions are:

What if the theory has no axioms? What if results of the theory are just "guessed", not deduced from axioms?

Answer: Then the theory, e.g. general relativity, is a not-even-wrong empirical concoction, essentially equivalent to curve fitting models:



Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev (31/03/2019, 18h51)
Zoe travels towards Jasper and measures the speed of light to be c:



Let us imagine that, by using the same device, Zoe measures the wavelength of the light. Does the wavelength vary with Zoe's speed, or is it invariable?

If Zoe were emitting sound waves, she would find that the wavelength does vary with her speed. Then how about the wavelength of light?

Physics wrongly teaches that the wavelength of light, just like the wavelength of sound, VARIES with the speed of the emitter:



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 thesource 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."

This variation of the wavelength of light contradicts the principle of relativity. If the wavelength varied, by measuring it, Zoe would know how fast she is moving. The wavelength of light is INVARIABLE.

Since the wavelength does not vary with Zoe's speed, Jasper measures the speed of light to be c'=c+v, not c:



The logic can be reversed. If Jasper measures the speed of the light to be c'=c+v, then the wavelength of light is INVARIABLE. In the quotation below Banesh Hoffmann clearly explains that, "without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations" (as was the case in 1887), the Michelson-Morley experiment proves Newton's variable speed of light (c'=c±v) and disproves the constant (independent of the speed of the emitter) speed of light (c'=c) posited by the ether theory and adopted by Einstein:

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 theone 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."

Wikipedia: Newton's variable speed of light, c'=c ± v, explains the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment:

"Emission theory, also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining theresults of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887. [...] The namemost 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)."

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev (31/03/2019, 22h25)
As light falls in gravity, its speed and frequency increase proportionally:

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object. ITSSPEED INCREASES AS IT IS FALLING. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as it falls to earth. Because of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass, WE SHOULD OBSERVE THE SAME EFFECT FOR LIGHT. So lets shine a light beam from the top of a very tall building. If we can measure the frequency shift as the light beam descends the building, we should be able to discern how gravity affects a falling light beam. This was done by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They shone a light from the top of the Jefferson tower at Harvard and measured the frequency shift."

This means that, given the formula (frequency)=(speed of light)/(wavelength), the wavelength of light in a gravitational field is INVARIABLE.

Here is more rigorous analysis:

The top of a tower of height h shoots a bullet downwards with initial speedu. As the bullet reaches the ground, its speed (relative to the ground) is

u' = u(1 + gh/u^2)

According to Newton's theory, light falls with the same acceleration as ordinary falling bodies. Therefore, if the top of the tower emits a light pulse downwards, this pulse will reach the ground with speed

c' = c(1 + gh/c^2)

The frequency an observer on the ground will measure is

f' = c'/λ = f(1 + gh/c^2)

where λ is the (invariable) wavelength and f=c/λ is the initialfrequency (as measured at the top of the tower). This frequency shift has been confirmed by the Pound-Rebka experiment.

The above analysis, apart from justifying the axiom

"The wavelength of light is invariable",

proves that gravitational time dilation does not exist - Einstein's generalrelativity is nonsense.

Pentcho Valev
Discussions similaires