Re: Relativity and the nature of light. Waves or particles?

On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 23:03:42 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:

Le 15/10/2024 à 22:52, hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) a écrit :

>
It's hard for relativists to accept this, as 110 years of lies with
einstenian physics COLLAPSE completely.

>
It's not 110 years, but 120 years.
>
And I won't use the word lie.
>
Misinterpretation of the Poincaré-Lorentz transformations, which we
might
not have found until decades later without Poincaré...
>
It's not that the theory of relativity is wrong, it's that it's so badly
taught that, on some points, it's downright horrible, and even
completely
wrong.
>
"A terrible thing has happened, and everything is nothing but
falsifications, but men like it that way".
Word of God to the prophet I don't know who...
>
R.H.

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).