Length contraction has never been proven

Relative physicists claim that time dilation and length contraction are real phenomenons which explain experiments like Michelson Morley. First of all, they dont explain anything because they're just mathematical constructs, who's only purpose was to make Lorentz's aether theory comply with the observations like the null result of MM experiment.

 Then the obvious one: length contraction was NEVER experimentally confirmed. They are all assuming that it was, when in fact it was NOT. There were several experiments done to test it, some proposed by Lorentz himself, and they all failed to confirm it. Lorentz was shocked that this happened, and instead of admiting that his length contraction was falsified, he made up another ad-hoc concept called 'local time' to explain why length contraction wasn't detectable locally. But there is no local time or time dilation either.

There simply is no need for time dilation and length contraction to explain the invariance of the speed of light. Because the speed of light is ALREADY INVARIANT in classical physics. The cause is that the wave's speed only depends on the properties of the MEDIUM, i.e. aether, and it does NOT compose with the speed of source or observer, like a ball's speed. The observer only measures a different apparent frequency and wavelength, due to Doppler effect, not a different speed of the wave, c=flambda. And when you multiply those you always get f'lambda'=c, the speed of waves in the medium/aether.

It is EXTREMELLY SIMPLE, yet you ignore this simple explanation because like Lorentz and Einstein you don't understand classical wave physics, and confuse the relative speed between the wave and the observer with the speed of the wave, which can only be calculated with the wave equation v=flambda=f'lambda'.

In fact both Lorentz and Einstein completelly ignored this wave equation and the Doppler equations when trying to explain the invariance of the speed of light WAVES for moving observers. Which is really, really stupid. I am really shocked by how stupid they were.

Not only did they not know how to calculate the speed of waves correctly, but they made another fundamental error by calculating the speed of the wave from the rest frame of the observer, when in classical physics all waves have a PREFFERED frame of reference, which means that you can only measure or calculate the speed of the wave relative to the rest frame of its medium, not relative to other rest frames. So when the observer is moving in the medium, he is still measuring the speed of the wave relative to the medium, and not relative to him. It is a flagrant error to impose the rest frame of the observer as the preferred frame of the wave, and then calculate the speed of the wave relative to the rest frame of the observer, by simply adding the speeds together. It is unscientific, illogical and

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The fundamental error of the Michelson-Morley experiment. Special relativity is wrong.

Image
''The  Michelson–Morley experiment  was an attempt to measure the motion of the  Earth  relative to the  luminiferous aether , [ A 1 ]  a supposed medium permeating space that was thought to be the carrier of  light waves . The experiment was performed between April and July 1887 by American physicists  Albert A. Michelson  and  Edward W. Morley  at what is now  Case Western Reserve University  in  Cleveland , Ohio, and published in November of the same year. [ 1 ] Michelson and Morley's  interferometric  setup, mounted on a stone slab that floats in an annular trough of  mercury The experiment compared the  speed of light  in perpendicular directions in an attempt to detect the relative motion of matter, including their laboratory, through the luminiferous aether, or "aether wind" as it was sometimes called. The result was negative, in that Michelson and Morley found no significant difference...
Read more

An introduction to Refractional Redshift, and how it was confused with gravitational redshift (updated)

Image
  AN INTRODUCTION TO REFRACTIONAL REDSHIFT, AND HOW IT WAS CONFUSED WITH GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT. GENERAL RELATIVITY DEBUNKED. Marius L. Vasile @Vasile Effect   In this paper I will prove that refraction causes a redshift, which I cleverly named Refractional redshift, and that this redshift was not so cleverly confused with gravitational redshift by the world's finest scientists- we're talking Harvard, Nobel prize level here- which were either ignorant of refraction, or doctors in doctoring experiments with it. Refractional redshift is by far the most common and yet unknown type of redshift- certainly for astronomers, who have no ideea that it exists. It is caused due to the fact that during refraction the speed of light changes, but the frequency remains constant. Since f=v/lambda, where lambda is the wavelength, it immediately follows that the wavelength changes too in order to preserve the frequency. This results in an increase of wavelength or a redshift when...
Read more

Why the speed of light is Invariant in Classical Physics. Einstein was dead wrong

Image
 The speed of light in a vacuum is invariant, meaning it is the same for all observers, regardless of their relative motion or the motion of the light source. This is a fundamental postulate of Einstein's theory of special relativity, and it has absolutelly nothing to do with it. It has to do with the Doppler effect and how it changes the frequency and wavelength of the light wave due to the motion of the observer/source. But it does NOT cause a change in the observed velocity. Because if frequency increases, then wavelength decreases, and if frequency decreases, then wavelength increases. The result of this is that their product v=f*lambda will always be constant  when measured by a moving observer. This explains why speed of light is invariable in different inertial frames in classical physics, and why it is not variable as these geniuses like Michelson, Lorentz or Einstein expected. Here is the AI calculation which proves it, which made Google Gemini (following Copilot) adm...
Read more