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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #478248 > unrolled thread

The Speed of Light Is Obviously Variable (Einstein Century-Long Worship Is a Mystery)

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

Contents

  The Speed of Light Is Obviously Variable (Einstein Century-Long Worship Is a Mystery) Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2018-11-27 02:40 -0800
    Re: The Speed of Light Is Obviously Variable (Einstein Century-Long Worship Is a Mystery) Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-11-27 07:36 -0800
    Re: The Speed of Light Is Obviously Variable (Einstein Century-Long Worship Is a Mystery) Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2018-11-27 14:35 -0800
      Re: The Speed of Light Is Obviously Variable (Einstein Century-Long Worship Is a Mystery) JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-11-27 16:38 -0800
        Re: The Speed of Light Is Obviously Variable (Einstein Century-Long Worship Is a Mystery) Lee Primer <itoo@wodinwnc.cg> - 2018-11-28 00:45 +0000
          Re: The Speed of Light Is Obviously Variable (Einstein Century-Long Worship Is a Mystery) JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-11-27 20:55 -0800
            Re: The Speed of Light Is Obviously Variable (Einstein Century-Long Worship Is a Mystery) Lee Primer <itoo@wodinwnc.cg> - 2018-11-28 15:21 +0000
              Re: The Speed of Light Is Obviously Variable (Einstein Century-Long Worship Is a Mystery) JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-11-28 14:54 -0800
                Re: The Speed of Light Is Obviously Variable (Einstein Century-Long Worship Is a Mystery) Lee Primer <itoo@wodinwnc.cg> - 2018-11-29 18:10 +0000
                  Re: The Speed of Light Is Obviously Variable (Einstein Century-Long Worship Is a Mystery) JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-11-29 15:00 -0800
                    Re: The Speed of Light Is Obviously Variable (Einstein Century-Long Worship Is a Mystery) Lee Primer <itoo@wodinwnc.cg> - 2018-11-30 00:03 +0000
                      Re: The Speed of Light Is Obviously Variable (Einstein Century-Long Worship Is a Mystery) JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-11-29 16:25 -0800
                        Re: The Speed of Light Is Obviously Variable (Einstein Century-Long Worship Is a Mystery) Lee Primer <itoo@wodinwnc.cg> - 2018-11-30 15:31 +0000
      Re: The Speed of Light Is Obviously Variable (Einstein Century-Long Worship Is a Mystery) Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2018-11-28 02:00 -0800
        Re: The Speed of Light Is Obviously Variable (Einstein Century-Long Worship Is a Mystery) JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-11-29 15:01 -0800
    Re: The Speed of Light Is Obviously Variable (Einstein Century-Long Worship Is a Mystery) mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-11-29 14:22 -0800
    Re: The Speed of Light Is Obviously Variable (Einstein Century-Long Worship Is a Mystery) carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2018-11-29 14:37 -0800
    Re: The Speed of Light Is Obviously Variable (Einstein Century-Long Worship Is a Mystery) carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2018-11-29 15:10 -0800

#478248 — The Speed of Light Is Obviously Variable (Einstein Century-Long Worship Is a Mystery)

The speed of light depends on the speed of the emitter (Newton) or is independent (Einstein)? The answer was given, implicitly, in 1887. Dependence directly confirmed. 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

The speed of light VARIES with the speed of the receiver:

Stationary emitter; moving receiver:  http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_detector_blue.gif 

(Website:  http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler.html) 

The speed of the light pulses relative to the emitter is 

c = df 

where d is the distance between the pulses and f is the frequency measured by the emitter. The speed of the pulses relative to the receiver is 

c'= df' > c 

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

Pentcho Valev

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#478260

On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 3:40:55 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev lied:
>
> [Regurgitations deleted]
>
> The speed of light VARIES with the speed of the receiver:
> 
> Stationary emitter; moving receiver:  http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_detector_blue.gif 

No such thing as a "moving receiver" having any meaning about the speed
of light.  Pretentious Pentcho regurgitates this bull plop but it
doesn't make it smell any better.  He needs to get a brain upgrade.

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

#478280

Neil deGrasse Tyson's "cosmic conspiracy of the highest order" - the triumph of post-truth (post-sanity) science: 

Neil deGrasse Tyson, Death by Black Hole: And Other Cosmic Quandaries, pp. 123-124: "If everyone, everywhere and at all times, is to measure the same speed for the beam from your imaginary spacecraft, a number of things have to happen. First of all, as the speed of your spacecraft increases, the length of everything - you, your measuring devices, your spacecraft - shortens in the direction of motion, as seen by everyone else. Furthermore, your own time slows down exactly enough so that when you haul out your newly shortened yardstick, you are guaranteed to be duped into measuring the same old constant value for the speed of light. What we have here is a COSMIC CONSPIRACY OF THE HIGHEST ORDER."  https://www.amazon.com/Death-Black-Hole-Cosmic-Quandaries/dp/039335038X 

Michelle Thaller (52:06): "The speed of light is so constant that the universe actually changes everything so that you never see it going any other speed"  https://youtu.be/fiv7qUQ51Kc?t=3126

Brian Greene: "If space and time did not behave this way, the speed of light would not be constant and would depend on the observer's state of motion. But it is constant; space and time do behave this way. Space and time adjust themselves in an exactly compensating manner so that observations of light's speed yield the same result, regardless of the observer's velocity." 
 http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/special-relativity-nutshell.html 

Constancy of the speed of light - the fundamental falsehood in physics - is imposed on physics students in the same way as the name Bingo is imposed on the dude here: 

Bingo the Clowno https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gX5ajyPr96M 

In the end each student gets the name Bingo the Einsteiniano. 

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dq-_qZhX0AAhX8p.jpg 

Pentcho Valev

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

#478290

On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 2:35:09 PM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Neil deGrasse Tyson's "cosmic conspiracy of the highest order" - the triumph of post-truth (post-sanity) science: 
> 
> Neil deGrasse Tyson, Death by Black Hole: And Other Cosmic Quandaries, pp. 123-124: "If everyone, everywhere and at all times, is to measure the same speed for the beam from your imaginary spacecraft, 

Haven't we heard this nonsense of yours before?

--
Jan

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

#478292

JanPB wrote:

> On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 2:35:09 PM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>> Neil deGrasse Tyson's "cosmic conspiracy of the highest order" - the
>> triumph of post-truth (post-sanity) science:
>> Neil deGrasse Tyson, Death by Black Hole: And Other Cosmic Quandaries,
>> pp. 123-124: "If everyone, everywhere and at all times, is to measure
>> the same speed for the beam from your imaginary spacecraft,
> 
> Haven't we heard this nonsense of yours before?

Not a nonsense. Pure fact. By "conspiracy" Dr. Neil is admitting 
relativity is a house of cards, making no sense whatsoever. Mostly a math 
curiosity. So true indeed.

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

#478304

On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 4:45:58 PM UTC-8, Lee Primer wrote:
> JanPB wrote:
> 
> > On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 2:35:09 PM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> >> Neil deGrasse Tyson's "cosmic conspiracy of the highest order" - the
> >> triumph of post-truth (post-sanity) science:
> >> Neil deGrasse Tyson, Death by Black Hole: And Other Cosmic Quandaries,
> >> pp. 123-124: "If everyone, everywhere and at all times, is to measure
> >> the same speed for the beam from your imaginary spacecraft,
> > 
> > Haven't we heard this nonsense of yours before?
> 
> Not a nonsense. Pure fact. By "conspiracy" Dr. Neil is admitting 
> relativity is a house of cards, making no sense whatsoever. Mostly a math 
> curiosity. So true indeed.

You are not even wrong.

--
Jan

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

#478310

JanPB wrote:

> On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 4:45:58 PM UTC-8, Lee Primer wrote:
>> JanPB wrote:
>> 
>> > On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 2:35:09 PM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev
>> > wrote:
>> >> Neil deGrasse Tyson's "cosmic conspiracy of the highest order" - the
>> >> triumph of post-truth (post-sanity) science:
>> >> Neil deGrasse Tyson, Death by Black Hole: And Other Cosmic
>> >> Quandaries,
>> >> pp. 123-124: "If everyone, everywhere and at all times, is to
>> >> measure the same speed for the beam from your imaginary spacecraft,
>> > 
>> > Haven't we heard this nonsense of yours before?
>> 
>> Not a nonsense. Pure fact. By "conspiracy" Dr. Neil is admitting
>> relativity is a house of cards, making no sense whatsoever. Mostly a
>> math curiosity. So true indeed.
> 
> You are not even wrong.

How could I be, read with your own eyes what the man is saying. You are 
making him a conspiracy theorist, are you??

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

#478330

On Wednesday, November 28, 2018 at 7:21:04 AM UTC-8, Lee Primer wrote:
> JanPB wrote:
> 
> > On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 4:45:58 PM UTC-8, Lee Primer wrote:
> >> JanPB wrote:
> >> 
> >> > On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 2:35:09 PM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> Neil deGrasse Tyson's "cosmic conspiracy of the highest order" - the
> >> >> triumph of post-truth (post-sanity) science:
> >> >> Neil deGrasse Tyson, Death by Black Hole: And Other Cosmic
> >> >> Quandaries,
> >> >> pp. 123-124: "If everyone, everywhere and at all times, is to
> >> >> measure the same speed for the beam from your imaginary spacecraft,
> >> > 
> >> > Haven't we heard this nonsense of yours before?
> >> 
> >> Not a nonsense. Pure fact. By "conspiracy" Dr. Neil is admitting
> >> relativity is a house of cards, making no sense whatsoever. Mostly a
> >> math curiosity. So true indeed.
> > 
> > You are not even wrong.
> 
> How could I be, read with your own eyes what the man is saying. You are 
> making him a conspiracy theorist, are you??

I have no idea who/what "Dr. Neil" is but relativity is just like any
other established theory in physics. In every respect.

Anything else you might hear on that subject is a howl of Boeotians.

--
Jan

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

#478406

JanPB wrote:

>> >> >> Neil deGrasse Tyson's "cosmic conspiracy of the highest order" -
>> >> >> the triumph of post-truth (post-sanity) science:
>> >> >> Neil deGrasse Tyson, Death by Black Hole: And Other Cosmic
>> >> >> Quandaries,
>> >> >> pp. 123-124: "If everyone, everywhere and at all times, is to
>> >> >> measure the same speed for the beam from your imaginary
>> >> >> spacecraft,
>> >> > 
>> >> > Haven't we heard this nonsense of yours before?
>> >> 
>> >> Not a nonsense. Pure fact. By "conspiracy" Dr. Neil is admitting
>> >> relativity is a house of cards, making no sense whatsoever. Mostly a
>> >> math curiosity. So true indeed.
>> > 
>> > You are not even wrong.
>> 
>> How could I be, read with your own eyes what the man is saying. You are
>> making him a conspiracy theorist, are you??
> 
> I have no idea who/what "Dr. Neil" is but relativity is just like any
> other established theory in physics. In every respect.
> Anything else you might hear on that subject is a howl of Boeotians.

The poor man just said "relativity is a cosmic conspiracy of the highest 
order". Open your eyes before attempting to read. If not relativity, what 
else. This much for your "established theory". Try again.

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

#478480

On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 10:10:29 AM UTC-8, Lee Primer wrote:
> JanPB wrote:
> 
> >> >> >> Neil deGrasse Tyson's "cosmic conspiracy of the highest order" -
> >> >> >> the triumph of post-truth (post-sanity) science:
> >> >> >> Neil deGrasse Tyson, Death by Black Hole: And Other Cosmic
> >> >> >> Quandaries,
> >> >> >> pp. 123-124: "If everyone, everywhere and at all times, is to
> >> >> >> measure the same speed for the beam from your imaginary
> >> >> >> spacecraft,
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > Haven't we heard this nonsense of yours before?
> >> >> 
> >> >> Not a nonsense. Pure fact. By "conspiracy" Dr. Neil is admitting
> >> >> relativity is a house of cards, making no sense whatsoever. Mostly a
> >> >> math curiosity. So true indeed.
> >> > 
> >> > You are not even wrong.
> >> 
> >> How could I be, read with your own eyes what the man is saying. You are
> >> making him a conspiracy theorist, are you??
> > 
> > I have no idea who/what "Dr. Neil" is but relativity is just like any
> > other established theory in physics. In every respect.
> > Anything else you might hear on that subject is a howl of Boeotians.
> 
> The poor man just said "relativity is a cosmic conspiracy of the highest 
> order". Open your eyes before attempting to read. If not relativity, what 
> else. This much for your "established theory". Try again.

I'm not interested in discussing idiocies and infantile conspiracy theories.

--
Jan

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

#478497

JanPB wrote:

> On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 10:10:29 AM UTC-8, Lee Primer wrote:
>> JanPB wrote:
>> 
>> >> >> >> Neil deGrasse Tyson's "cosmic conspiracy of the highest order"
>> >> 
>> >> How could I be, read with your own eyes what the man is saying. You
>> >> are making him a conspiracy theorist, are you??
>> > 
>> > I have no idea who/what "Dr. Neil" is but relativity is just like any
>> > other established theory in physics. In every respect.
>> > Anything else you might hear on that subject is a howl of Boeotians.
>> 
>> The poor man just said "relativity is a cosmic conspiracy of the
>> highest order". Open your eyes before attempting to read. If not
>> relativity, what else. This much for your "established theory". Try
>> again.
> 
> I'm not interested in discussing idiocies and infantile conspiracy
> theories.

no sure, when cornered, the next would be to say werner von braun went to 
the moon. In his capacity, as an investment.

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

#478499

On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 4:03:38 PM UTC-8, Lee Primer wrote:
> JanPB wrote:
> 
> > On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 10:10:29 AM UTC-8, Lee Primer wrote:
> >> JanPB wrote:
> >> 
> >> >> >> >> Neil deGrasse Tyson's "cosmic conspiracy of the highest order"
> >> >> 
> >> >> How could I be, read with your own eyes what the man is saying. You
> >> >> are making him a conspiracy theorist, are you??
> >> > 
> >> > I have no idea who/what "Dr. Neil" is but relativity is just like any
> >> > other established theory in physics. In every respect.
> >> > Anything else you might hear on that subject is a howl of Boeotians.
> >> 
> >> The poor man just said "relativity is a cosmic conspiracy of the
> >> highest order". Open your eyes before attempting to read. If not
> >> relativity, what else. This much for your "established theory". Try
> >> again.
> > 
> > I'm not interested in discussing idiocies and infantile conspiracy
> > theories.
> 
> no sure, when cornered, the next would be to say werner von braun went to 
> the moon. In his capacity, as an investment.

Gobbledygook.

--
Jan

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

#478558

JanPB wrote:

> On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 4:03:38 PM UTC-8, Lee Primer wrote:
>> JanPB wrote:
>> 
>> > On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 10:10:29 AM UTC-8, Lee Primer
>> > wrote:
>> >> JanPB wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> >> >> >> Neil deGrasse Tyson's "cosmic conspiracy of the highest
>> >> >> >> >> order"
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> How could I be, read with your own eyes what the man is saying.
>> >> >> You are making him a conspiracy theorist, are you??
>> >> > 
>> >> > I have no idea who/what "Dr. Neil" is but relativity is just like
>> >> > any other established theory in physics. In every respect.
>> >> > Anything else you might hear on that subject is a howl of
>> >> > Boeotians.
>> >> 
>> >> The poor man just said "relativity is a cosmic conspiracy of the
>> >> highest order". Open your eyes before attempting to read. If not
>> >> relativity, what else. This much for your "established theory". Try
>> >> again.
>> > 
>> > I'm not interested in discussing idiocies and infantile conspiracy
>> > theories.
>> 
>> no sure, when cornered, the next would be to say werner von braun went
>> to the moon. In his capacity, as an investment.
> 
> Gobbledygook.

I am using DuckDuckGo.

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

#478306

In Einstein's schizophrenic world scientists repudiate space-time, inform the world that space-time doesn't exist, but worship the underlying premise, Einstein's false constant-speed-of-light postulate, and LIGO's "ripples in spacetime":

Nima Arkani-Hamed (06:09): "Almost all of us believe that space-time doesn't really exist, space-time is doomed and has to be replaced..."  https://youtu.be/U47kyV4TMnE?t=369

"We've known for decades that space-time is doomed," says Arkani-Hamed. "We know it is not there in the next version of physics."  http://discovermagazine.com/2014/jan-feb/10-shaping-the-future-of-physics 

Nobel Laureate David Gross observed, "Everyone in string theory is convinced...that spacetime is doomed. But we don't know what it's replaced by."  https://www.edge.org/response-detail/26563 

What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime... [...] The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..."  https://www.edge.org/response-detail/25477 

"Rethinking Einstein: The end of space-time. [...] Horava, who is at the University of California, Berkeley, wants to rip this fabric apart and set time and space free from one another in order to come up with a unified theory that reconciles the disparate worlds of quantum mechanics and gravity - one the most pressing challenges to modern physics."  https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727721-200-rethinking-einstein-the-end-of-space-time/

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DcMHjnHWkAEXB8f.jpg 

Pentcho Valev

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

#478481

On Wednesday, November 28, 2018 at 2:00:06 AM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> In Einstein's schizophrenic world scientists repudiate space-time, inform the world that space-time doesn't exist, but worship the underlying premise, Einstein's false constant-speed-of-light postulate, and LIGO's "ripples in spacetime":

Gobbledygook.

--
Jan

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

#478465

On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 2:40:55 AM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> The speed of light depends on the speed of the emitter (Newton) or is independent (Einstein)? The answer was given, implicitly, in 1887. Dependence directly confirmed. 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
> 
> The speed of light VARIES with the speed of the receiver:
> 
> Stationary emitter; moving receiver:  http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_detector_blue.gif 
> 
> (Website:  http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler.html) 
> 
> The speed of the light pulses relative to the emitter is 
> 
> c = df 
> 
> where d is the distance between the pulses and f is the frequency measured by the emitter. The speed of the pulses relative to the receiver is 
> 
> c'= df' > c 
> 
> where f' > f is the frequency measured by the receiver.
> 
> Pentcho Valev

Move toward light...

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

#478471

It is not physically possible to determine the velocity of light

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

#478491

This paper will analyze the wave theory of light.  Huygens describes the propagation of light using spherical waves formed by the motion of an ether, composed of matter, yet light propagates in vacuum that is void of matter.  Fresnel derived a diffraction intensity equation using interfering spherical waves based on "Huygens' principle" but Huygens' spherical waves do not interfere. Maxwell introduces an electromagnetic theory of light based on Faraday's induction effect since induction forms in vacuum but Faraday's induction effect is not luminous. Michelson tests for the existence of Fresnel's ether using an interferometer but the result was negative.  Hertz's radio waves are used to justify Maxwell's theory but radio waves do not alter the fact that Maxwell's theory is based on Faraday's induction effect that is not luminous. Lorentz uses a transformation to reverse the negative result of Michelson's experiment to justify the existence of Fresnel's ether but light propagates in vacuum which proves the ether does not exist. Lenard proves light is composed of particles which conflicts with the continuity of Maxwell's electromagnetic field. In special relativity (1905), Einstein alters the coordinate system of Maxwell's equations to justify Maxwell's theory but manipulating the coordinate system does not change the fact that Maxwell's equations are derived using Faraday's induction effect that is not luminous. Einstein (1910) describes an electromagnetic ether which conflicts with Huygens-Fresnel ether that remains stationary after the light wave propagates through the ether.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web