Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.gegeweb.eu!gegeweb.org!pasdenom.info!from-devjntp
Message-ID: <2YxiESSHixqAzZB70EYfBUX5qXk@jntp>
JNTP-Route: nemoweb.net
JNTP-DataType: Article
Subject: Re: Relativity and the nature of light. Waves or =?UTF-8?Q?particles=3F?=
References: <729c6c816b598ea72c5e917156b4e9b9@www.novabbs.com> <UvfvfAv_elM_E9_p09xadfbGlkU@jntp>
 <ae13e03273dcb7d615c26aab7546daab@www.novabbs.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
JNTP-HashClient: PEDKbZ3h11R_CC178kav5PJ98S8
JNTP-ThreadID: 729c6c816b598ea72c5e917156b4e9b9@www.novabbs.com
JNTP-Uri: https://www.nemoweb.net/?DataID=2YxiESSHixqAzZB70EYfBUX5qXk@jntp
User-Agent: Nemo/1.0
JNTP-OriginServer: nemoweb.net
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 24 12:57:37 +0000
Organization: Nemoweb
JNTP-Browser: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/129.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
Injection-Info: nemoweb.net; posting-host="e8cbf2474b472b9bb79db3dccb6a856bc1d05409"; logging-data="2024-10-16T12:57:37Z/9062992"; posting-account="4@nemoweb.net"; mail-complaints-to="julien.arlandis@gmail.com"
JNTP-ProtocolVersion: 0.21.1
JNTP-Server: PhpNemoServer/0.94.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-JNTP-JsonNewsGateway: 0.96
From: Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid>

Le 16/10/2024 à 02:07, hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) a écrit :
> 
> You must have noticed that the OP is based on the Point 2 of the 1905
> Einstein's paper. I didn't even go with Point 3, where Lorentz
> transforms are wrongfully developed.
> 
> So, the question in the OP is pointing exactly at the CORE of SR. If at
> such early part of the paper, the hypothesis of the 2nd. Postulate IS
> WRONG, then the entire relativity collapses. Goodbye time dilation,
> length contraction, relativistic mass of electrons, E=mc2, spacetime and
> the entire body of GEOMETRY posing as physics, which is general
> relativity.
> 
> Just proving that the 2nd. Postulate IS FALSE, and that the speed of
> light depends on the speed of the emitter IS ENOUGH.
> 
> Don't make things more complex than what they really are. Just ONE
> initial hypothesis (2nd. Postulate) is all what's needed to make the
> entire body of relativity A PILE OF CRAP (which is already, due to
> highly dubious and CONTESTED experiments in the last 75 years).

No, the second postulate is not false.

It is not, moreover, a postulate in the proper sense.

The postulate is anisochrony (I am currently writing a short article 
which, if it is successful, which I doubt due to the construction and 
blindness of my contemporaries), could be completed by other short 
chapters to give a coherent whole on relativistic kinematics.

Anisochrony (relativity of simultaneity and impossibility of covering a 
simple reference point with clocks synchronized WITH EACH OTHER) will then 
lead by perfect deduction to the invariance of the TRANSVERSE speed of 
light.

It is therefore not a postulate but the consequence of another postulate 
based on the experience of a physical impossibility of exceeding c, and 
which has extended to all particles and laws of physics.

As for the speed of the source, it increases the energy perceived by the 
receiver, like the speed of a petanque ball on a bell will increase the 
power of the sound, without the speed of the sound wave increasing.

I gave the six corresponding equations recently on this forum,
showing the relativity of the electromagnetic wavelength and frequency as 
a function of α, α',and µ.

R.H.