Einstein’s Light Speed Postulate is Illogical
von Hartwig Thim (2010)
Johannes Kepler University, Linz, A-4040, AUSTRIA
e-mail: hartwig.thim@jku.at
Einstein’s Light Speed Postulate is Illogical
Einstein postulated in his 1905 article that light speed is isotropic in all inertial frames in order to derive the Lorentz Transformations. But the light speed postulate is logically wrong for the following reason: suppose, a short light pulse is emitted from a source mounted, say, in the origin of the coordinate system K, which is at rest.
A coordinate system K’ is moving at v in the x-direction. At the moment, when the origins of both K and K‘ are coinciding, one spherical wave front is launched at the origin of K. This means that there will be one spheri-cal wave-front expanding around the origin of K, because the origin of K‘ moves away at v. But the Lorentz Transformations transform this pulse (launched in K) into a wave-front spherically expanding in K‘, although there cannot be such a spherically expanding wave-front around the origin of K‘. How could there be one, as only one spherically expanding wave-front was generated around the origin of K, where the emitter is mounted! K‘ moves away at v, without carrying with it a spherically expanding wave front at the origin of K‘. But the Lorentz transformation equations are predicting that! This cannot be correct! It is logically impossible!
Lesen Sie bitte hier weiter!
- 29. Oktober 2011
- Englischsprachige Kritik der Relativitätstheorie
- Kommentare (2)
Moreover, there is another inconsistency in Einstein’s postulate stating there is no ether medium, forcing him to ‚disform‘ the empty space around a heavy body to explain light bending around the Sun or any other heavy body. Namely: Light (photons) is agreed to be a wave phenomenon, so how can that propagate in a mediumless (vacuüm)space?
In fact, assuming a medium (ether) for propagation of lightwaves (photons), it comes natural to take that medium to be somewhat dissipative, explaining the measured Hubble redshift by a ‚tired light‘ theory – obliviating the ‚expanding Universe‘ thesis (with the corresponding BigBang assumption via time reversal – in a dissipative medium time-reversal is invalid).
The universal 3 K background noise is then also explained, namely the photons loose energy (= redshift by Planck’s equation E = h.nu) to their environment (ether medium) and ‚warm it up‘ ever so slightly.
And the increased density of ether around a heavy body explains light bending around the Sun, and Mercury’s elliptic main axis to retard a bit. Furthermore, the redshift is measured to be quantized, excluding it to be a Doppler effect!
See http://home.claranet.nl/users/benschop/ether.htm
The idea that the ether is somewhat dissipative ties in very nicely to what William H. Cantrell, Ph.D, had to say:
http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue59/adissidentview.html
-:-
Aether-based Theories
But what about alternative theories? Are they better? And what of aether-based theories? High school science students are conditioned to ridicule the concept of a nineteenth-century luminiferous aether with eye-rolling and giggling. But is this really a contemptible idea when compared with the „new and improved“ terminology of gravitational masses „warping“ the fabric of „space-time“? Sounds a little like an über-aether in another guise. Given that the nothingness of a perfect absolute vacuum is bestowed with the physical properties of a permittivity, eo8.854 pF/m, a permeability, mo4p x 10-7 H/m, and a characteristic impedance of 377 ohms, is the concept of an aether really that outlandish?
-:-
A characteristic impedance of 377 ohms…
And the idea that photons loose energy to the environment ties in very nicely to the theories of Prof. Turtur, as quoted in my article on free energy:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Article:Free_Electric_Energy_in_Theory_and_Practice
=:=
Well, it may be right that particle physics says it’s easy to extract EM energy from the vacuum, but that does not tell us how we can use that, nor how we can engineer systems that are able to make use of this unknown, or better: overlooked, territory. Where is that energy? Where does it come from and where does it go?
The answer to these questions can be found in the paper Conversion of the Vacuum-energy of electromagnetic zero point oscillations into Classical Mechanical Energy by the German Professor Claus Turtur. In the chapter „A circulation of energy of the electrostatic field“ (pages 10-14) he makes a straightforward calculation of the energy density of the static electric field surrounding a point charge using nothing more than Coulombs law and the known propagation speed of the electric field, the speed of light, and shows that there must be some kind of energy circulation between the vacuum and charge carriers:
-:-
If electrostatic fields propagate with the speed of light, they transport energy, because they have a certain energy density. It should be possible to trace this transport of energy if is really existing. That this is really the case can be seen even with a simple example regarding a point charge, as will be done on the following pages. When we trace this energy, we come to situation, which looks paradox at the very first glance, but the paradox can be dissolved, introducing a circulation of energy. This is also demonstrated on the following pages.
The first aspect of the mentioned paradox regards the emission of energy at all. If a point charge (for instance an elementary charge) exists since a given moment in time, it emits electric field and field’s energy from the time of its birth without any alteration of its mass. The volume of the space filled with this field increases permanently during time and with it the total energy of the field. But from where does this “new energy” originate? For the charged particle does not alter its mass (and thus its energy), the “new energy” can not originate from the particle itself. This means: The charged particle has to be permanently supplied with energy from somewhere. The situation is also possible for particles, which are in contact with nothing else but only with the vacuum. The consequence is obvious: The particle can be supplied with energy only from the vacuum. This sounds paradox, so it can be regarded as the first aspect of the mentioned paradox. But it is logically consequent, and so we will have to solve it later.
[…]
Important is the conclusion, which can be found with logical consequence:
On the one hand the vacuum (= the space) permanently supplies the charge with energy (first paradox aspect), which the charge (as the field source) converts into field energy and emits it in the shape of a field. On the other hand the vacuum (= the space) permanently takes energy away from the propagating field, this means, that space gets back its energy from field during the propagation of the field. This indicates that there should be some energy inside the “empty” space, which we now can understand as a part of the vacuum-energy. In section 3, we will understand this energy more detailed.
But even now, we can come to the statement:
During time, the field of every electric charge (field source) increases. Nevertheless the space (in the present work the expressions “space” and “vacuum” are use as synonyms) causes a permanent circulation of energy, supplying charges with energy and taking back this energy during the propagation of the fields. This is the circulation of energy, which gave the title for present section 2.2.
This leads us to a new aspect of vacuum-energy:
The circulating energy (of the electric field) is at least a part of the vacuum-energy. We found its existence and its conversion as well as its flow. On the basis of this understanding it should be possible to extract at least a part of this circulating energy from the vacuum – in section 4 a description is given of a possible method how to extract such energy from the vacuum.
-:-
So there we are. The electric field (the airflow in our fandoor analogy) is on the one hand powered by the vacuum and on the other hand it powers the vacuum. So, at least part of the energy in space / the vacuum, referred to with names as „Zero Point Energy“ (ZPE), virtual particle flux, the Dirac sea, Orgone, etc. is not only fueled by the electric field, it is continuously converted back into an electric field by each and every charged particle in the universe, which makes the electric field a source of energy. The implications of that are staggering. It means that the law of conservation of energy does not apply to electrical systems, because they are not isolated. After all, Turtur shows without a shadow of a doubt that energy is being extracted from the active vacuum by each and every charged particle and thus every electrical system in existence in the Universe.
Interestingly, Nikola Tesla already said the exact same thing in 1891:
-:-
Nature has stored up in the universe infinite energy. The eternal recipient and transmitter of this infinite energy is the ether. The recognition of the existence of ether, and of the functions it performs, is one of the most important results of modern scientific research. The mere abandoning of the idea of action at a distance, the assumption of a medium pervading all space and connecting all gross matter, has freed the minds of thinkers of an ever present doubt, and, by opening a new horizon—new and unforeseen possibilities—has given fresh interest to phenomena with which we are familiar of old.
-:-
Based on all this, it is clear that we need to look at electrical systems in a different way, we need a way of thinking that does account for the energy source that is really powering our systems. In a way, we need a similar change in our models as the change from Newton to quantum mechanics. While Newtonian mechanics can still be used in mechanical engineering most of the time, at some point they are no longer valid, for example in the calculation of satellite orbits. In the same way, the current electrical engineering model is fine for most applications where it suffices to consider only the door part of our fandoor analogy, that is, by considering electrical systems basically as an analogy of hydraulics, which is literally just a variation of Newtonian mechanics. However, if you want to be able to utilize the energy source the electric field provides, there just ain’t no way to do that without taking the energy exchange between an electrical system and the vacuum completely into account. And that means we have to go back to field theory instead of describing our systems in terms of concrete components, the so-called lumped element models, especially in the case we are dealing with resonating coils.
=:=