Non-absolute speed of light, or what do we need THAT for

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

This time I decided to swing at our Albert, Einstein. I was prompted to this feat by a book recently by Israeli physicists “Universe! A course of survival among black holes. " Under the announcement of "new physics", which actually interested me.

Since I have no conscience, I have the audacity not to recognize any authorities. I am always interested in the essence, the deep meaning, the true content of any "holy" concept and authoritative opinions do not bother me, I have to find them and make sure on my own. This time I decided to swing at our Albert, Einstein. I was prompted to this feat by a book recently by Israeli physicists “Universe! A course of survival among black holes. " Under the announcement of "new physics", which actually interested me. But I did not find anything new in it, but I received a new impulse to creativity. Of course, I do not pretend to the fundamental practical foundations of physics, and that is only because I do not have a laboratory base, and what I have - ingenuity, I use when it is allowed by the opponents themselves.

So, the subject of our consideration will be the postulate of the absoluteness of the speed of light from the theory of relativity. More precisely, not he himself, but the method of his description. Which, as I noticed in the process of thinking, is a classic example of actually fooling and forming thinking patterns. Here we have complete freedom - its authors themselves propose a thought experiment, that is, we will be limited only by our own imagination. Poor popularizers had no idea that there are people with much more imagination than theirs, for which they actually will pay now! However, obviously realizing the weakness of their argument base, they make a reservation that common sense will not help us! But then, how and on what to base their conclusions?

The postulate of the absoluteness of the speed of light, the compiler of TO bases on the experiments of Michelson and Morley, who tried to detect the ether as a medium for the propagation of light, but allegedly never found it and therefore decided to abandon it. His light spreads in an EMPTY SPACE, a vacuum, on which the conclusions of the descriptors of mental experiments are based, and will be our argument later.

The TO postulate says: the speed of light remains unchanged for all observers, regardless of their speed in relation to the light source. (Physicists use the letter c for the speed of light.) But strangely, there is one more option: The speed of light in vacuum, measured in any inertial reference frame, is the same and does not depend on the movement of the emitter.

That is, the apologists of TO did not agree among themselves on a common opinion? So what is the speed of light independent of - the speed of the observer or the speed of the source? As far as I understand, the speed of sound in the MEDIUM (I have highlighted everything that is important and key, on which the postulates of physicists are actually built) is also independent of the speed and direction of motion of its source, it is always RELATIVE to the coordinate POINT of RADIATION of sound in it. It's elementary! Throw a stone into the water and the waves from the place of its fall will always diverge at the same speed, regardless of the speed and direction of its contact with the water. And how should light fundamentally differ from sound in this sense, no one records the speed of sound in absolute terms on this basis?

Now about observers and speed meters. All argumentation is actually based on them. But they behave in some strange, pretentious and biased way among the TO populizers - they see exactly what the supporters of THAT need, sometimes clearly contradicting their own postulates! Experiments are staged one-sidedly, without enthusiasm, ingenuity and imagination, stereotypically. The discovery of what actually served as an impetus for the consideration of this topic. Adding your own creativity to their behavior instantly not only highlighted the shortcomings and weaknesses of the TO arguments, but, in principle, nullified them and flushed them down the toilet! To facilitate the perception of my condensed form of presentation, those who are not too aware of the introduction to TO, can familiarize themselves with it in advance in the relevant publications.

In the first version, which I read thirty years ago in the paper edition of TO, there was a flashlight on the floor of the carriage and a mirror on the ceiling, just above it. And since he was before with him and let's start. And so, the car is moving at a speed comparable to the speed of light. For example, half of it. Past the platform where the observer is. The researcher (let's call him a Schizic - he cannot be a physicist by definition, we will see it now) at this moment turns on the flashlight and, according to his observations, a ray of light, hitting the mirror above, is reflected from it back onto the flashlight, having traveled path s in time t. An observer on the platform (let's call him Cyclops, because only one-eyed, and then with a cataract, can see what we are offered), will see that in fact the beam traveled a distance greater than s in the same time t. Because while he was rising from the floor to the mirror, it shifted along with the train by a certain distance and an increase in s occurred due to this angular displacement. Now the question is: how did the beam get into the mirror, which went to the side while the beam reached it ?! After all, if the speed of light is INDEPENDENT on the movement of the source, and therefore on its platform - the car, then it must go VERTICALLY upward from the coordinate point of the start and movement of the car, and not RELATIVELY to the flashlight, in fact, denying by this the absoluteness of its speed, and this is what the observer will see on the platform ! Light has no mass, like the empty space in which it propagates, and therefore it is not obliged to move by inertia after the car and together with it, we still have a platform, if anything! In this case, it is for Cyclops that the light travels the distance s in time t. And what about Shizik? If he moves the mirror back a little in advance so that the flashlight beam hits it, then it will naturally be reflected from it. But what happens then for Shizik? And for him, the light will pass s + 2 angular displacements from the mirror when it comes back. That is, under the given conditions, a diametrically opposite picture is obtained!

Those who wish can still experiment with a flashlight and a mirror on the platform and Shizik watching this from the window of the carriage …

No, the first option, of course, has the right to life, but only under the only condition, which the author of TO denies - movement together with the carriage of the medium for the propagation of light (ether). Maybe that's why practice confirms this theory (it's far from a fact - then a simple addition of speeds turns out), but what is its mental basis, built precisely on the negation of the essence!

In the new version, Shizik is already shooting with a laser from a pointer. And now along the carriage, strictly in the direction of the train. And again, as in the previous case, the beam rushes along the car (probably loaded and packed in vacuum - the medium of light propagation?) At its own speed relative to the car, passing a longer distance in the same time for the Cyclops standing on the platform we were told it must be ideological! To solve this paradox, physicists decided that the time in the car slows down. And they offered to consider the same to us. Funny, found someone!

As they explain, a ray of light directed INSIDE a carriage, rushing at half the speed of light, inside the carriage will have the same speed of light (because it MUST!), Due to the slowing down of time in it. Okay, let's agree with this, in order to catch up speed in the car you need a double deceleration. True, physicists have less - they also have a shrinking carriage length! But this is not critical, the result is the same, but it’s easier to understand.

And now the fanfare and drum roll - and what will happen with the speed of light in the car if you shoot a ray towards the car? The usual logic suggests with + 0.5s (car speed), but as we are told, there is no more (and less!) C. And what is the effect of time dilation in this case? Last time it "helped" us to catch up with the required speed of light, but now it needs to be slowed down! And time dilation only accelerates it !!! Moreover, I am not adding to this the reduction in the length of the carriage at this speed, which was promised to us by the compilers of the description, which will further increase the speed of the beam inside the carriage!

Judge for yourself. In the previous case, the light catches up with the car with 0.5 s and without slowing down the time in the car itself, it would have the same speed. Stretching a second twice, we double the distance traveled by the beam per second, that is, we make up for its speed. Now, the beam in the car travels one and a half times the distance in an ordinary second, and 3 times in the extended one in the previous example !!! That is, in order to adjust the speed to the required one, now we need to ACCELERATE TIME by one and a half times! And what will happen over time with the simultaneous appearance of these rays and measuring their speed ?! Now it is clear why in these "experiments" Shiziki are firing beams STRICTLY one and one given direction?

Even under their conditions, an insoluble paradox arises if, for example, the same mirror is placed not on the ceiling, but in the opposite end of the car. The same ray, sent into it in the direction of the carriage movement and therefore requiring time dilation, when reflected back will require its acceleration in the carriage and deceleration on the platform, because it will move back relative to it twice as slow! What is it like?!

Who is deceiving us - the authors of a principle or a thought experiment? And that's not all! God!!! Why did I undertake this topic? !! Now I don't know what theoretical physicists are doing and why the heck are they even needed ?! The criticism that these are simple examples for beginners I do not accept - it is on them and others like them that the further description of TO is built, and are focused at least on those who have studied the school course of physics, and not first-graders. There, spaceships at the speed of light ply the vastness of the universe, watching each other through the illuminators. The twins break up and meet after many years of starfaring, comparing with each other who has become younger than whom. There, even two starships flying towards each other with the speeds of light approach each other at the same speed. True, this is no longer in the last book - it is evident that they realized that they were clearly too clever, because it is impossible to approach a ship flying towards it and a fixed meeting point with it at the same speed. Go ahead.

Let's complicate the experiment a little more. This time Shiziku will feel stuffy in the car and he will finally open the window and look out of it! Looking ahead and seeing Cyclops on the approaching platform, he decides to play a joke on him and fires a laser pistol in the ass. Let's assume that at the moment of the shot the distance between them was equal to 1 sv.sec. and the locomotive pulling the carriage with Schizik was just at that moment opposite the Cyclops. Since c is constant, the beam relative to the Cyclops will move at this speed until after a second of the platform time it reaches its goal - his ass, everything is clear here. But what about Shizik in the car? For him, too, the beam must move at a speed of c and therefore assumes that it will reach both the locomotive and the Cyclops' ass in 1 second. BUT until the beam reaches the Cyclops, the locomotive will rush forward by half a second according to the platform clock, that is, the same beam will reach the locomotive much later, although indeed, according to the clock in the carriage, exactly 1 second later! That is, the beam is simply obliged to hit the Cyclops' ass BEFORE in 1 sec. by Shizik's clock !!! But this is EXCEEDING the speed of light! Ay, where is the traffic police with the radar ?! Once again: the speed of light is independent of the speed and movement of both the source and the observer, the distance between the source and the two targets is the same. That is, the "defeat" of both by the ray must be SIMULTANEOUS! As you can see in this case, even time dilation does not help, a banal addition of velocities is obtained, it was enough to "extract" the beam from the boundaries of the carriage template … This is an example of using the extrapolar method of thinking - going beyond the concept and transferring properties to another object for comparison. Expanding the boundaries of the perception of the fact. In contrast to the "scientists" who use the interpretative method - the desire to give a phenomenon a definition corresponding to the concept of correct in relation to their own views and not allowing other options in reasoning. It goes without saying that it is unacceptable in science, but it has proven itself well in manipulating consciousness.

This is where the talk about the absoluteness of the speed of light comes from? There is the so-called Doppler effect, when when moving towards the radiation, the frequency increases, and when moving away from the source, it decreases. This happens because when the speed of movement relative to the radiation waves changes, their number perceived by the observer (receiver) at the same time interval also changes. Doppler theoretically substantiated addictionfrequencies of sound and light fluctuationsperceived by the observer, from speedand directions motion of the wave source and the observerrelative to each other. THAT tells us that the speed of light is ABSOLUTE for all observers, and then practicing physicists use the effect that DENIES the absoluteness of the speed of light to determine the speed of space objects! In the same book! Is this called science ?!

Speaking of frequency. The notorious time deceleration at light speeds practically to infinity should also reduce the frequency of natural vibrations of a photon by a similar value. Those. it will be dark, almost black, and therefore will simply disappear for our world, in addition, it will also SHRINK into a vanishing point! And what are we going to observe? Omniscient physicists do not mention this!

And absolutely funny absoluteness of the speed of light is obtained with the subjective relativity of time and space in the description, where they behave like rubber products! After all, what is speed if not the product of time and distance ?! In this case, they must also be absolute, are seconds and meters world constants? Although there are still reasonable grains, if we proceed from the fact that time itself exists only as the DURATION of a process relative to other processes and of itself depends on its speed. That is, time depends on speed, and not vice versa. True, then the speed must be expressed through something else. Absolute speed, relative, and so it will come down.

Another thing that causes bewilderment - if physicists convince us that practice proves the correctness of this theory, then why, in the introduction of its description in the last edition, the same ridiculous THINKING experiment with assumptions is given as an example, where a REAL experience with the expected results, after all, passed a hundred years, and quite active? Well, or at least more qualitative and unambiguous justifications for the description, showing that physicists themselves understood the essence of the phenomenon? Launching a couple of satellites into space, overclocking them in opposite orbits, is not so expensive. And they shot the laser into each other at different speeds, measuring the speed of the beam. And they probably did such experiments. That's just the result of the TO did not confirm, Shizik and Cyclops stupidly added the speeds, so they are silent about them.

And what kind of science can be built on such a foundation? Now it is clear why the TO does not kick unless the lazy one. Well, why it is still considered sacred, then this is another, broader topic …