Einstein was wrong, the speed of light cannot be constant because it's immeasurable by his own theo

The speed of light as a constant is wrong and impossible to measure. You can't possibly calculate yourself as an observer at rest when there is no place on earth or anywhere else for that matter where you are completely at rest. It's immeasurable. So how did the brilliant Einstein come up with this flawed theory?

Time travel is real, General Relativity is highly flawed, Einstein new the truth but covered it up with GR.

As claimed by Einstein the constant light speed hypothesis is only valid when observer and source are within a non-accelerating reference frame. There is no place in the known universe this happens or is possible. Throw this theory out immediately.

the speed of light is not constant and certainly not limited to 299792.458 km/s.

Agreed.

Faraday had figured that out a long time ago but was ignored.

reply to post by libertytoall


Hi there. It's called Relativity. Meaning that all observations of reality are RELATIVE to the OBSERVER.
The speed of light is constant in a (theoretical) vacuum. It doest not account for torsion physics or other neat things being researched these days. Also relativity only starts working about a few millionths of a second after the big bang. So before that there was no speed of light to observe. E=MC2 is not the answer of all, but it still works.

I hope that clears things up.

reply to post by libertytoall


can you expand your post to tell us more about light speed,
what are the true limits of light speed?

You say that it can't be measured, but why cant two points be measured with a laser
burst here on Earth?

Just thinking

Originally posted by dashen
reply to post by libertytoall

 

Hi there. It's called Relativity. Meaning that all observations of reality are RELATIVE to the OBSERVER.
I hope that clears things up.

Errm, no ...

That isn´t connected with what the OP said in any way


The problem is that you can not measure the speed of light because your point of observation is also moving.

And because you have no point of reference you can´t even measure with what speed you are moving so any observation of the speed of light is obsolete because you aren´t able to account your relative speed.

Excuse my ignorance, but why must the observer be "at rest" in order to measure the constancy of light speed?

reply to post by AnnoyingOrangeX


Actually, it is. In fact, it's what the OP is missing - the definition of "relativity" - that measured velocity is all relative. According to the observer, the observer is always at rest. All external velocities are then measured relative to the observer. And, when any observer measures the speed of light, it is found to always be the same value.

If this were not the case, light would not exist.

I never really understood how light could be a set speed. I always wondered if it could be sped up or slowed down. If you can block or trap light why could it not also be sped or slowed down. Also makes me think a lot of the speed of dark. I believe they still have many theories on the speed of dark.

Originally posted by libertytoall
The speed of light as a constant is wrong and impossible to measure. You can't possibly calculate yourself as an observer at rest when there is no place on earth or anywhere else for that matter where you are completely at rest.

So does that mean that the speed of light would be different if you measure it on, say Jupiter? Because Jupiter would have a reference frame that was traveling at a different speed?

Originally posted by AnnoyingOrangeX

Originally posted by dashen
reply to post by libertytoall

 

Hi there. It's called Relativity. Meaning that all observations of reality are RELATIVE to the OBSERVER.
I hope that clears things up.

Errm, no ...

That isn´t connected with what the OP said in any way


The problem is that you can not measure the speed of light because your point of observation is also moving.

And because you have no point of reference you can´t even measure with what speed you are moving so any observation of the speed of light is obsolete because you aren´t able to account your relative speed.

edit on 24-8-2011 by AnnoyingOrangeX because: (no reason given)

If you are moving at 20mph light coming from you will still be traveling at 186mps no matter where the light is observed. If you throw a ball at 6mph out of car at 20mph you could say that the ball is moving at 26mph. Balls thrown from moving vehicles follow different rules than light. You cannot add the 20mph to the 186mps because it is already going at max speed.

Not to be condescending.. but did you come up with this yourself, or did you read this somewhere?

Originally posted by BIGPoJo
If you are moving at 20mph light coming from you will still be traveling at 186mps no matter where the light is observed. If you throw a ball at 6mph out of car at 20mph you could say that the ball is moving at 26mph. Balls thrown from moving vehicles follow different rules than light. You cannot add the 20mph to the 186mps because it is already going at max speed.

no ...you are assuming that it travels at max speed and therefore behave other than the ball because this is implied by what einstein said but this is actualy not the case. Why should light behave otherwise than anything else?

You seem to be confused. The speed of light is constant. Untouched by relativity. Therefore the speed can be measured. The speed of photons traveling through a medium may vary, this however isn't the result of relativity.

To make it simple: Imagine a beam of light shooting off in a direction. Let's assume you as an observer have no mass and travel in the same direction with lightspeed. Now, you observe the beam. The beam of light will cross your relative point of observation with the speed of light. This means regardless whether you are standing still or moving along with lightspeed the beam of light will always pass by with the speed of light. Therefore you can measure it.

Remember that what is being talked about is the speed of light in a vacuum. All sorts of materials can make it go slower. It also refers to measurements being made in a reference frame that is in a stable situation (not accelerating, but at a constant velocity).

Where things like bouncing balls or travelling vehicles and projectiles are concerned, they are going relatively slow enough (compared to light speed) that the adding and subtracting of velocities works easily through Newtonian physics.

Also, an interesting thing about the nature of the universe is that we can only measure the ROUND TRIP averaged speed of light. We have to send the light beam to something for which we sort of know how far away it is, then wait for the beam of light to return to us to measure how long it took to go there and come back. Then we calculate the speed of light based on the total distance travelled and the time it took to make the ROUND TRIP. We cannot, however, measure the ONE WAY speed of light. We cannot go to another location and put a clock or some other sensor there because in so doing, we alter our reference frame and alter our ability to accurately measure the passage of time. If we mess up the rate of time passage by our movement in order to put a receiving device into place, we can no longer be certain of the accuracy of the receiving device picking up on the exact WHEN that the light beam arrives.

So, from a theoretical perspective, the ONE WAY speed of light can be anything that we want it to be (even "instantaneous") as long as the averaged ROUND TRIP speed equals out to the constant ROUND TRIP speed of light.

Weird, I know.

English physicist and chemist Michael Faraday discovered the principle of induction is well known already in 1830. This says:
When an electrical conductor cuts magnetic lines of force, then an electric voltage and current flows.
It is not relevant whether the leader is past the magnet or the magnet is moved past the ladder. It depends only on the relative motion of the two to each other.

But even Faraday was surprised to 1832 with his UNIPOLAR inducer experimented and found that this machine-generated electricity in flagrant violation of the principle of induction.

In the first experiment Faraday had a copper disk rotating over a stationary bar magnet. As expected, after the induction principle, in the wire loop, an electric voltage is induced.

In the second trial Faraday did rotate the magnet and the copper disc stood still. According to the induction principle an electrical voltage should have been induced - but it was not!

In the third experiment Faraday rotated the magnet and copper disk in the same direction and at the same speed. Because there was no relative motion between the magnet and copper disc, Faraday expected no induction voltage - but it could be measured!

Conclusion: If, contrary to the principle of induction, the relative motion between the magnet and copper disk is not always decisive for the emergence of an induced voltage is, the absolute motion must also play a big role! Because something has to move, so that current can flow. But an absolute motion is undetectable, according to relativity theory! Therefore, Faraday's experiment clearly disproved Einstein!

Translated with google... I hope it is understandable anyways xD

Of course the speed of light isn't constant.

How do you think it get's sucked into a black hole? It has to change it's speed flying outwards and turn inwards.

But however if we could observe light in a completely closed system perhaps it would maintain a consistent speed or behavior? I hate to refer to Newton and the First Law of Motion and the principal of inertia, but it was inevitable.

reply to post by libertytoall

actually "points of reference" can be duplicated.

Emitting light sources such as a laser in your hand are virtually TIED to YOUR reference frame. Yes you will always be traveling at some speed in some direction but the source of light you hold such as a laser pen is as well and thus your reference frames are the same and thus speed/velocity of travel doesn't get in the way of that measurement?

Originally posted by libertytoall
The speed of light as a constant is wrong and impossible to measure. You can't possibly calculate yourself as an observer at rest when there is no place on earth or anywhere else for that matter where you are completely at rest. It's immeasurable. So how did the brilliant Einstein come up with this flawed theory?

Time travel is real, General Relativity is highly flawed, Einstein new the truth but covered it up with GR.

As claimed by Einstein the constant light speed hypothesis is only valid when observer and source are within a non-accelerating reference frame. There is no place in the known universe this happens or is possible. Throw this theory out immediately.

the speed of light is not constant and certainly not limited to 299792.458 km/s.

edit on 24-8-2011 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)

I posted earlier OP, maybe you missed it.. but I was wondering if you came up with this theory on your own?

Originally posted by AnnoyingOrangeX
...
no ...you are assuming that it travels at max speed and therefore behave other than the ball because this is implied by what einstein said but this is actualy not the case. Why should light behave otherwise than anything else?

Not making any assumptions here. The speed of light has been proven and re-proven using multiple methods since before I was born. The speed of light has even been tested in space. Guess what they found? Einstein is correct. Also, to strengthen Einstein's model, we recently discovered that frame dragging is real. Without the speed of light constant frame dragging could not be possible.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Of course the speed of light isn't constant.

How do you think it get's sucked into a black hole? It has to change it's speed flying outwards and turn inwards.
...

That is because space is being sucked in faster than the speed of light. Space can expand or contract faster than light can move though it.

Originally posted by AnnoyingOrangeX

Originally posted by BIGPoJo
If you are moving at 20mph light coming from you will still be traveling at 186mps no matter where the light is observed. If you throw a ball at 6mph out of car at 20mph you could say that the ball is moving at 26mph. Balls thrown from moving vehicles follow different rules than light. You cannot add the 20mph to the 186mps because it is already going at max speed.

no ...you are assuming that it travels at max speed and therefore behave other than the ball because this is implied by what einstein said but this is actualy not the case. Why should light behave otherwise than anything else?

Because light is made of photons and photons do not have mass, unlike a baseball, or as you put it, "anything else". That being said, we already know it is not an absolute constant because we know black holes exist. Light traveling outwards from the center of a star is also slowed down. Einstein knew both of these things and his work actually predicted it before it was proven.