Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #617183 > unrolled thread

Feynman Unwittingly Disproves Einstein's Relativity

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Feynman Unwittingly Disproves Einstein's Relativity Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-09 09:17 -0700
    Re: Feynman Unwittingly Disproves Einstein's Relativity Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-09 10:34 -0700
      Re: Feynman Unwittingly Disproves Einstein's Relativity Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 17:42 -0700
        Re: Feynman Unwittingly Disproves Einstein's Relativity Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 20:31 -0700
        Re: Feynman Unwittingly Disproves Einstein's Relativity Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-08-09 22:41 -0500
          Re: Feynman Unwittingly Disproves Einstein's Relativity Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 21:05 -0700
        Re: Feynman Unwittingly Disproves Einstein's Relativity Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-10 07:58 -0400
          Re: Feynman Unwittingly Disproves Einstein's Relativity Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-10 05:05 -0700
    Re: Feynman Unwittingly Disproves Einstein's Relativity Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 17:38 -0700
      Re: Feynman Unwittingly Disproves Einstein's Relativity whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-09 20:40 -0500
      Re: Feynman Unwittingly Disproves Einstein's Relativity Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-10 08:01 -0400
        Re: Feynman Unwittingly Disproves Einstein's Relativity Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-10 05:05 -0700

#617183 — Feynman Unwittingly Disproves Einstein's Relativity

Richard Feynman: "First, let us calculate the time required for the light to go from B to E and back. Let us say that the time for light to go from plate B to mirror E is t_1, and the time for the return is t_2. Now, while the light is on its way from B to the mirror, the apparatus moves a distance ut_1, so the light must traverse a distance L + ut_1, at the speed c. We can also express this distance as ct_1, so we have

ct_1 = L+ut_1,  or  t_1 = L/(c−u).

(This result is also obvious from the point of view that the velocity of light relative to the apparatus is c−u, so the time is the length L divided by c−u.)" http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_15.html 
 
Feynman's words "at the speed c" express the assumption that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the emitter (in this case the apparatus moving along the Earth's orbit). And, as Feynman explains, the assumption entails the absurdity that "the velocity of light relative to the apparatus is c−u". So the assumption is obviously false, isn't it? That is the reason why the final prediction based on this assumption is incompatible with the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment.

If, instead of "at the speed c", we have a new assumption, 
 
"at the speed c ± u", 
 
as predicted by Newton's theory, the calculation (based on the new assumption) will give a new prediction, 
 
t_1 + t_2 = 2t_3 = 2L/c, 
 
which exactly matches the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment.

Pentcho Valev https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#617201

Einstein: "If the speed of light depends even in the least on the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity, including the theory of gravitation, is wrong." https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol5-trans/376

The speed of light does depend on the speed of the source

https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-f10f1c25528a4e5edc9bae200640f31c-pjlq

as originally, prior to the preposterous fudge-factoring performed by FitzGerald and Lorentz, proved by 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 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

Banesh Hoffmann, Einstein's co-author, admits that, originally ("without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations"), the Michelson-Morley experiment was compatible with Newton's variable speed of light, c'=c±v, and incompatible with the constant speed of light, c'=c:

"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." Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92 https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768

Pentcho Valev https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#617234

On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 10:35:02 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Einstein: "If the speed of light depends even in the least on the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity, including the theory of gravitation, is wrong." https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol5-trans/376 
> 
> The speed of light does depend on the speed of the source 
> 
> https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-f10f1c25528a4e5edc9bae200640f31c-pjlq 
> 
> as originally, prior to the preposterous fudge-factoring performed by FitzGerald and Lorentz, proved by 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 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 
> 
> Banesh Hoffmann, Einstein's co-author, admits that, originally ("without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations"), the Michelson-Morley experiment was compatible with Newton's variable speed of light, c'=c±v, and incompatible with the constant speed of light, c'=c: 
> 
> "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." Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92 https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768 
> 
> Pentcho Valev https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
“Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body.” The only way this can be true is if light shares the velocity of the source in the first place.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#617241

On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 5:42:13 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

>> “Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body.” - Einstein
 
>The only way this can be true is if light shares the velocity of the source in the first place.

This is what happens when you have no formal physics education. You blather at the mouth without a freaking clue as to what you are saying!

Get a freaking education before you explode from pure ignorance!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#617242

On 8/9/23 7:42 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> [quoting Einstein's 1905 paper, postulate #2] “Any ray of light
> moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined
>  velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a
> moving body.”

> The only way this can be true is if light shares the velocity of the 
> source in the first place.

You need to learn how to read, and how to think. In fact, the only way
Einstein's postulate can be true is if light DOES NOT share the velocity
of the source.

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#617245

On Thursday, 10 August 2023 at 05:41:34 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 8/9/23 7:42 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > [quoting Einstein's 1905 paper, postulate #2] “Any ray of light
> > moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined 
> > velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a 
> > moving body.” 
> 
> > The only way this can be true is if light shares the velocity of the 
> > source in the first place.
> You need to learn

that we're FORCED!!! To THE BEST WAY!!!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#617258

On 8/9/2023 8:42 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

>> Pentcho Valev https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
> “Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body.” The only way this can be true is if light shares the velocity of the source in the first place.

You have a real compensation problem. Einstein stated that the light 
ALWAYS moves in the stationary system at c REGARDLESS of the motion of 
the source, which can be true only if light does NOT share the velocity 
of the source.

I will type the next sentence very slowly so that you can keep up with it.

If light shared the velocity v of the source, it would be measured as 
moving at c+v, not c, which is the opposite of which Einstein said.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#617261

On Thursday, 10 August 2023 at 13:58:57 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> On 8/9/2023 8:42 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> 
> >> Pentcho Valev https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev 
> > “Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body.” The only way this can be true is if light shares the velocity of the source in the first place.
> You have a real compensation problem. Einstein stated that the light 
> ALWAYS moves in the stationary system at c REGARDLESS of the motion of 
> the source, which can be true only if light does NOT share the velocity 
> of the source. 

Even your idiot guru wasn't mad enough to stick to this nonsense
for long and his GR shit has withdrawn.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#617233

On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 9:17:12 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>... And, as Feynman explains, the assumption entails the absurdity that "the velocity of light relative to the apparatus is c−u". So the assumption is obviously false, isn't it? That is the reason why the final prediction based on this assumption is incompatible with the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment. 

> 
> Pentcho Valev https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
Valev means here that c-u is false because it presumes light velocity does not share the velocity of the source.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#617235

On 8/9/2023 7:38 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 9:17:12 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>> ... And, as Feynman explains, the assumption entails the absurdity that "the velocity of light relative to the apparatus is c−u". So the assumption is obviously false, isn't it? That is the reason why the final prediction based on this assumption is incompatible with the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment.
> 
>>
>> Pentcho Valev https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
> Valev means here that c-u is false because it presumes light velocity does not share the velocity of the source.

Pathetic that Laurence thinks those who actually appreciate
mainstream physics need to have crank physics explained to us.

Laurence has nothing original to contribute, so he piggybacks
off other cranks because he's so desperately seeking recognition.

Laurence you're an idiot and even worse than that, a fool. Find
another hobby, one in which you can actually be successful. Science
isn't for you because you're not willing to learn. The crank world
is one of the default escape venues for failures like you. Acceptance
by fellow cranks is merely a different face painted on a circle jerk.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#617259

On 8/9/2023 8:38 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 9:17:12 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>> ... And, as Feynman explains, the assumption entails the absurdity that "the velocity of light relative to the apparatus is c−u". So the assumption is obviously false, isn't it? That is the reason why the final prediction based on this assumption is incompatible with the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment.
> 
>>
>> Pentcho Valev https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

> Valev means here that c-u is false because it presumes light velocity does not share the velocity of the source.

Why do you keep using ubercrank Valev as a reference? Valev is so 
unreliable that if he said the sky is blue, I'd look out my window and 
check.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#617262

On Thursday, 10 August 2023 at 14:01:45 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> On 8/9/2023 8:38 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 9:17:12 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote: 
> >> ... And, as Feynman explains, the assumption entails the absurdity that "the velocity of light relative to the apparatus is c−u". So the assumption is obviously false, isn't it? That is the reason why the final prediction based on this assumption is incompatible with the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment. 
> > 
> >> 
> >> Pentcho Valev https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev 
> 
> > Valev means here that c-u is false because it presumes light velocity does not share the velocity of the source.
> Why do you keep using ubercrank Valev as a reference? Valev is so 


And do you still believe that  9 192 631 770  ISO idiocy
is some "Newton mode"? You're such an amazing idiot, 
stupid Mike, even considering the standards of your
moronic religion.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web