FORBIDDEN LOGIC IN EINSTEINIANA
Pentcho Valev
(c'=c(1+phi/c^2) according to Newton's emission theory of light and
c'=c(1+2phi/c^2) according to Einstein's general relativity).
CONCLUSION 1: Light emitted by a celestial body with a substantial
gravitational field leaves the field and continues its journey with
speed c' lower than c (part of the redshift is due to this).
CONCLUSION 2: Light emitted by the top of a tower reaches an observer
on the ground with speed c' higher than c. Equivalently, light emitted
by the front end of an accelerating rocket reaches an observer at the
back end with speed c' higher than c (that is, the speed of light
varies with the speed of the observer, in contradiction with
Einstein's 1905 false light postulate).
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
kenseto
The speed of incoming light from s moving sodium source is calculated
as follows:
c'=(measured frequency)(universal wavelength of sodium 589 nm)
Ken seto
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com
Tom Roberts
> PREMISE: The speed of light varies with the gravitational potential
> (c'=c(1+phi/c^2) according to Newton's emission theory of light and
> c'=c(1+2phi/c^2) according to Einstein's general relativity).
This last is just plain wrong. In GR, light always follows a null geodesic,
which means that a local measurement of a light ray's speed will always yield c
(measurement made in a locally-inertial frame using standard clocks and rulers).
This is completely independent of where the light ray was emitted or where the
measurement is made.
> CONCLUSION 1: [...]
Your conclusions are just plain wrong, based on a false premise. You REALLY need
to learn about the basics of GR....
Tom Roberts
Androcles
"Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:VOidnddJvPu...@giganews.com...
| Pentcho Valev wrote:
| > PREMISE: The speed of light varies with the gravitational potential
| > (c'=c(1+phi/c^2) according to Newton's emission theory of light and
| > c'=c(1+2phi/c^2) according to Einstein's general relativity).
|
| This last is just plain wrong.
"For velocities greater than that of light our deliberations become
meaningless; we shall, however, find in what follows, that the velocity of
light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an infinitely great
velocity." -- Einstein, insane author of GR.
You are just plain fucking stupid.
bert
> "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
If Einstein gave us nothing more than c is the fastest he would left
his mark on astronomy. He is known for E=MC^2 I am known for
G=EMC^2 Yet I have given a theory on every thing. Reality is I am
more clever and lived longer than Einstein. He had the pleasure of a
one on one meeting with me.He got a compass as a kid I got a gyro,and
that is what made me smarter O ya My ego is showing TreBert
Sam Wormley
> If Einstein gave us nothing more than c is the fastest he would left
> his mark on astronomy. He is known for E=MC^2 I am known for
> G=EMC^2 Yet I have given a theory on every thing. Reality is I am
> more clever and lived longer than Einstein. He had the pleasure of a
> one on one meeting with me.He got a compass as a kid I got a gyro,and
> that is what made me smarter O ya My ego is showing TreBert
Einstein had the advantage over you, Herb, in that observations
and experiments agree with relativity predictions, whereas your
equation and theories are just nonsense. Oh yeah!
bert
Sam its O ya Get it right. I have experiments that also prove some of
my theories. I also build the boats I sail. I also never told God did
not throw dice. Always knew the universe was changing and had a
start(BB) Love QM Get the picture TreBert
Sam Wormley
<smiling>
Jacko
be measured relatively invariant. The external observer will just
measure the mass as less and potentially negative. This could be
useful to say approach the speed of light and have less time dilation
for the net speed. There is no proof that the speed of light is
constant, but there is volumes of proof that the speed of light is
invariantly measured. It's simple your size, mass and time rate are
all relative. The reason you don't wonder why you only weigh 2 grammes
sometimes is because the other thing is also much reduced in weight
relatively.
The consistancy of quantum uncertainty working with relativity is that
mass oscillates so, and an uncertainty force relation happens based on
the 'effective invariant mass'. If uncertainty is not forced to happen
then how come it always happens, and why do all non commuting quantum
variables have mass directly or indirectly as a factor?
This cubic uncertainty force also, being a cubic, has a three
generational mass solution root system.
Cheers Jacko
http://sites.google.com/site/jackokring
p.s. The double bending of light is once via the mass and once via the
spacewarp. Spacearps do not have to have mass, but can attract mass
(also known as the uncertainty measure). The lack of mass of dark
matter spacewarps stops the contraction and is often explained as the
dark energy effect.
Pentcho Valev
observer.
PREMISE 2: (frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
CONCLUSION: The speed of light varies with the speed of the observer,
that is, Einstein's 1905 light postulate is false.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Androcles
"Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2605ae24-3b3b-4dd1...@q35g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
| PREMISE 1: The wavelength of light cannot vary with the speed of the
| observer.
Clearly a false premise:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/Relative.gif
The frequency of any wave cannot vary with the speed of the observer,
exactly one
cycle is measured for both waves yet one has twice the wavelength of the
other.
Hikaru Yamoshi
> Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > PREMISE: The speed of light varies with the gravitational potential
> > (c'=c(1+phi/c^2) according to Newton's emission theory of light and
> > c'=c(1+2phi/c^2) according to Einstein's general relativity).
>
> This last is just plain wrong. In GR, light always follows a null geodesic,
what else does not follows geodesics in GR
seems like you disagree with something
> which means that a local measurement of a light ray's speed will always yield c
> (measurement made in a locally-inertial frame using standard clocks and rulers).
standard clocks and rulers at exactly
speed of light is voodoo physics
> This is completely independent of where the light ray was emitted or where the
> measurement is made.
>
> > CONCLUSION 1: [...]
>
> Your conclusions are just plain wrong, based on a false premise.
not sure
Dr J R Stockton
2010 11:13:32, Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> posted:
>
>This last is just plain wrong. In GR, light always follows a null
>geodesic, which means that a local measurement of a light ray's speed
>will always yield c (measurement made in a locally-inertial frame using
>standard clocks and rulers). This is completely independent of where
>the light ray was emitted or where the measurement is made.
That is not really meaningful. Consult BIPM's site. The standard clock
exists in essence; its rate is given by a transition frequency of
Caesium. But length is now defined by setting the speed of light to
299792458 m/s exactly. Therefore, the speed of light can no longer me
measured. The experiment can be performed; but the result is a
calibration of the local ruler.
AFAICS, all that can really be said is that a photon cannot overtake
another along the same path; and that if nothing else changes then two
photons on the same path maintain a constant separation in time.
But something must be added about the size of the photon and the nature
of the environment; a visible photon can pass along the centre of an
ordinary, but evacuated, long metal water-pipe, whereas a photon of AM
radio should not.
--
(c) John Stockton, near London. *@merlyn.demon.co.uk/?.?.Stockton@physics.org
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Correct <= 4-line sig. separator as above, a line precisely "-- " (RFC5536/7)
Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with ">" or "> " (RFC5536/7)
Pentcho Valev
the linear speed of the periphery constant, one converts clocks fixed
on the periphery into VIRTUALLY INERTIAL clocks (the "gravitational
field" they experience is reduced to zero).
CONCLUSION: In accordance with Einstein's 1905 light postulate, a
clock at rest situated outside the disc, close to the periphery, will
be seen running SLOWER than the virtually inertial clocks passing it.
Another prediction based on Einstein's 1905 light postulate is that
the clock at rest will be seen running FASTER than the virtually
inertial clocks passing it ( http://www2.bartleby.com/173/23.html ).
Clearly we have REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM showing that Einstein's 1905
Pentcho Valev
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
"...light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity
c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."
CONCLUSION: In the bug-rivet scenario described below an observer
travelling with the rivet will see the bug being squashed. Observers
at rest relative to the bug will see it alive and kicking. Clearly we
have REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM showing that Einstein's 1905 light postulate
is false.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Relativ/bugrivet.html
"The bug-rivet paradox is a variation on the twin paradox and is
similar to the pole-barn paradox.....The end of the rivet hits the
bottom of the hole before the head of the rivet hits the wall. So it
looks like the bug is squashed.....All this is nonsense from the bug's
point of view. The rivet head hits the wall when the rivet end is just
0.35 cm down in the hole! The rivet doesn't get close to the
bug....The paradox is not resolved."
Pentcho Valev
(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
has always been a nightmare in Einsteiniana. This formula makes the
obvious fact "Both the frequency and the speed of light vary with the
speed of the observer", a fact consistent with both Maxwell's theory
and Newton's emission theory of light (but not with Divine Albert's
Divine Special Relativity), too obvious. That is, even in
Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world, where any idiocy is welcome, the
formula might prove dangerous for Einstein's 1905 false light
postulate. So Einsteinians fiercely teach that it is the wavelength
that varies with the speed of the observer:
http://sampit.geol.sc.edu/Doppler.html
"Moving observer: A man is standing on the beach, watching the tide.
The waves are washing into the shore and over his feet with a constant
frequency and wavelength. However, if he begins walking out into the
ocean, the waves will begin hitting him more frequently, leading him
to perceive that the wavelength of the waves has decreased."
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/big_bang/index.html
John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer
were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now
pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would
mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to
have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE
BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)."
Similarly, when confronted with Hubble redshift, Einsteinians fiercely
teach that the allegedly EXPANDING universe somehow "stretches" the
wavelength and so the constancy of the speed of light is saved.
However one is entitled to assume that this "stretching" is just as
silly as the variation of the speed of light with the speed of the
observer and advance the following argument:
PREMISE 1: The frequency of light coming from distant sources
decreases proportionally to the distance (Hubble redshift).
PREMISE 2: "Stretching" of the wavelength does not occur.
CONCLUSION: In our STATIC universe, the speed of light coming from
distant sources decreases proportionally to the distance.
Pentcho Valev wrote:
PREMISE 1: The wavelength of light cannot vary with the speed of the
observer.
PREMISE 2: (frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
CONCLUSION: The speed of light varies with the speed of the observer,
that is, Einstein's 1905 light postulate is false.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
> However one is entitled to assume that this "stretching" is just as
> silly as the variation of the speed of light with the speed of the
Mistake: I wrote "speed of light" instead of "wavelength". Here is the
corrected text:
The formula:
silly as the variation of the wavelength with the speed of the
Androcles
| Pentcho Valev wrote:
| > However one is entitled to assume that this "stretching" is just as
| > silly as the variation of the speed of light with the speed of the
| > observer and advance the following argument...
|
| Mistake: I wrote "speed of light" instead of "wavelength". Here is the
| corrected text:
|
| The formula:
|
| (frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
|
| has always been a nightmare in Einsteiniana. This formula makes the
| obvious fact "Both the frequency and the speed of light vary with the
| speed of the observer", a fact consistent with both Maxwell's theory
| and Newton's emission theory of light (but not with Divine Albert's
| Divine Special Relativity), too obvious. That is, even in
| Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world, where any idiocy is welcome, the
| formula might prove dangerous for Einstein's 1905 false light
| postulate. So Einsteinians fiercely teach that it is the wavelength
| that varies with the speed of the observer:
|
| http://sampit.geol.sc.edu/Doppler.html
| "Moving observer: A man is standing on the beach, watching the tide.
| The waves are washing into the shore and over his feet with a constant
| frequency and wavelength. However, if he begins walking out into the
| ocean, the waves will begin hitting him more frequently, leading him
| to perceive that the wavelength of the waves has decreased."
Moving observer: A man is driving a car over a bumpy road.
The bumps arrive at his wheels with constant frequency and
wavelength. However, if he begins driving faster, the bumps will
begin hitting him more frequently, leading him to perceive that
the wavelength of the bumps has decreased.
PREMISE 1: The FREQUENCY of light cannot vary with the speed of the
observer.
PREMISE 2: (wavelength) = (speed of light)/(frequency)
CONCLUSION: The speed of light varies with the speed of the observer,
that is, the speed of light is relative.
Pentcho Valev
suitably applied, converts the famous clock (twin) paradox into an
obvious absurdity. Here is the consequence:
If a single inertial clock covers the distance between two other
inertial clocks (immobile relative to one another), then the single
clock runs slower than the two other clocks.
In the clock paradox scenario the travelling clock commutes between
the clock at rest and the final destination where another clock at
rest can be placed. So, according to Einstein's 1905 light postulate,
the travelling clock runs slower than the clock at rest.
However, in essentially the same scenario, the clock at rest commutes
between two travelling clocks - e.g. placed at the front end and the
back end of a very long rocket. Therefore, according to Einstein's
1905 light postulate, the clock at rest runs slower than the
travelling clock.
Clearly we have REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM showing that Einstein's 1905
light postulate is false.
Pentcho Valev wrote:
PREMISE: By increasing the perimeter of a rotating disc while keeping
the linear speed of the periphery constant, one converts clocks fixed
on the periphery into VIRTUALLY INERTIAL clocks (the "gravitational
field" they experience is reduced to zero).
CONCLUSION: In accordance with Einstein's 1905 light postulate, a
clock at rest situated outside the disc, close to the periphery, will
be seen running SLOWER than the virtually inertial clocks passing it.
Another prediction based on Einstein's 1905 light postulate is that
the clock at rest will be seen running FASTER than the virtually
inertial clocks passing it ( http://www2.bartleby.com/173/23.html ).
Clearly we have REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM showing that Einstein's 1905
Inertial
news:8bff83e3-1cbc-49b5...@w30g2000yqw.googlegroups.com...
>
>There is a consequence of Einstein's 1905 light postulate which, if
>suitably applied, converts the famous clock (twin) paradox
The twin "paradox" comes from the 'light postulate' already
Pentcho now talks about a different scanrio than the twins paradox .. he
can't even tell the truth about that.
>into an
>obvious absurdity. Here is the consequence:
>
>If a single inertial clock covers the distance between two other
>inertial clocks (immobile relative to one another), then the single
>clock runs slower than the two other clocks.
Yeup
>In the clock paradox scenario the travelling clock commutes between
>the clock at rest and the final destination where another clock at
>rest can be placed. So, according to Einstein's 1905 light postulate,
>the travelling clock runs slower than the clock at rest.
Yeup .. mutual time dilation
>However, in essentially the same scenario, the clock at rest commutes
>between two travelling clocks - e.g. placed at the front end and the
>back end of a very long rocket. Therefore, according to Einstein's
>1905 light postulate, the clock at rest runs slower than the
>travelling clock.
Yeup .. mutual time dilation
>Clearly we have REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM showing that Einstein's 1905
>light postulate is false.
No .. because the clocks are not in sync in each others frame.
Try again
Androcles
"Inertial" <relat...@rest.com> wrote in message
news:4c734ec6$0$11118$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
| Pentcho now talks about a different scanrio
scanrio
The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling
suggestion below or try again using the search bar above.
1.. scanner
2.. scunner
3.. stainer
4.. signora
5.. schooner
6.. signore
7.. signory
8.. skinner
9.. signor
10.. stingray
11.. sycamore
12.. stoner
13.. stannary
14.. seignior
15.. stinger
16.. stunner
17.. schmear
18.. schnorrer
19.. Suttner
20.. stingaree
Androcles
| Pentcho now talks about a different scanrio
scanrio
Pentcho Valev
twin is that the latter experiences accelaration during the journey.
So in his infamous 1918 paper Einstein had no choice but to claim that
the greater youthfulness of the travelling twin is due to
acceleration. However:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/academ/whatswrongwithrelativity.html
G. BURNISTON BROWN: "There is, in principle, no need for acceleration.
Twin A can get his velocity V before synchronizing his clock with that
of twin B as he passes. He need not turn round: he could be passed by
C who has a velocity V in the opposite direction, and who adjusts his
clock to that of A as he passes. When C later passes B they can
compare clock readings. As far as the theoretical experiment is
concerned, C's clock can be considered to be A's clock returning
without acceleration since, by hypothesis, all the clocks have the
same rate when at rest together and change with motion in the same way
independently of direction. [fn. I am indebted to Lord Halsbury for
pointing this out to me.]"
That is, even without acceleration, the travelling twin ages slower
than the twin at rest. However, without acceleration, Einstein's 1905
light postulate entails RECIPROCAL time dilation and the twin at rest
must age slower than the travelling twin.
Pentcho Valev wrote:
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Peter Webb
> The essential difference between the twin at rest and the travelling
> twin is that the latter experiences accelaration during the journey.
No. The essential difference is that one remains in an inertial reference
frame, whereas the other does not.
Where did you learn Relativity? From a cereal box?
Androcles
"Peter Webb" <webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:4c790374$0$3032$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
Game over, Webb.
"the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an
infinitely great velocity" --ยง 4. Physical Meaning of the Equations
Obtained in Respect to Moving Rigid Bodies and Moving Clocks
-- ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES By A. Einstein
Having joined the Relativity Taliban your role as a suicide bomber has been
successful, you managed to blow yourself.
Pentcho Valev
absurdities. Originally we have RECIPROCAL time dilation - a direct
consequence of Einstein's 1905 false light postulate:
I see your clock running SLOWER than mine by a factor of (1/gamma) and
you see mine running SLOWER than yours by a factor of (1/gamma).
In his 1905 paper Einstein superimposed another absurdity incompatible
with the original one:
At the end of your round trip both of us see your clock running SLOWER
than mine by a factor of (1/gamma) and mine running FASTER than yours
by a factor of gamma.
For a century the breathtaking question:
What in your round trip has made my clock run FASTER?
has been shaping (destroying) the sense of rationality of generations
of scientists.
There is a third superimposed absurdity lurking in the experimental
"confirmation" of the my-clock-fast-your-clock-slow wisdom. Cosmic-ray
muons crashing into an obstacle quickly disintegrate. Cosmic-ray muons
that do not crash live longer. In Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world
crashing muons are obviously analogous to the clock (twin) at rest.
Non-crashing muons are analogous to the travelling clock (twin). So
Divine Albert's Divine Special Relativity predicts that, when the
travelling twin returns, he is younger than the twin at rest.
Pentcho Valev wrote:
The essential difference between the twin at rest and the travelling
twin is that the latter experiences accelaration during the journey.
So in his infamous 1918 paper Einstein had no choice but to claim that
the greater youthfulness of the travelling twin is due to
acceleration. However:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/academ/whatswrongwithrelativity.html
G. BURNISTON BROWN: "There is, in principle, no need for acceleration.
Twin A can get his velocity V before synchronizing his clock with that
of twin B as he passes. He need not turn round: he could be passed by
C who has a velocity V in the opposite direction, and who adjusts his
clock to that of A as he passes. When C later passes B they can
compare clock readings. As far as the theoretical experiment is
concerned, C's clock can be considered to be A's clock returning
without acceleration since, by hypothesis, all the clocks have the
same rate when at rest together and change with motion in the same way
independently of direction. [fn. I am indebted to Lord Halsbury for
pointing this out to me.]"
That is, even without acceleration, the travelling twin ages slower
than the twin at rest. However, without acceleration, Einstein's 1905
light postulate entails RECIPROCAL time dilation and the twin at rest
must age slower than the travelling twin.
Clearly we have REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM showing that Einstein's 1905
light postulate is false.
There is a consequence of Einstein's 1905 light postulate which, if
suitably applied, converts the famous clock (twin) paradox into an
obvious absurdity. Here is the consequence:
If a single inertial clock covers the distance between two other
inertial clocks (immobile relative to one another), then the single
clock runs slower than the two other clocks.
In the clock paradox scenario the travelling clock commutes between
the clock at rest and the final destination where another clock at
rest can be placed. So, according to Einstein's 1905 light postulate,
the travelling clock runs slower than the clock at rest.
However, in essentially the same scenario, the clock at rest commutes
between two travelling clocks - e.g. placed at the front end and the
back end of a very long rocket. Therefore, according to Einstein's
1905 light postulate, the clock at rest runs slower than the
travelling clock.
Clearly we have REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM showing that Einstein's 1905
light postulate is false.
PREMISE: By increasing the perimeter of a rotating disc while keeping
the linear speed of the periphery constant, one converts clocks fixed
on the periphery into VIRTUALLY INERTIAL clocks (the "gravitational
field" they experience is reduced to zero).
CONCLUSION: In accordance with Einstein's 1905 light postulate, a
clock at rest situated outside the disc, close to the periphery, will
be seen running SLOWER than the virtually inertial clocks passing it.
Another prediction based on Einstein's 1905 light postulate is that
the clock at rest will be seen running FASTER than the virtually
inertial clocks passing it ( http://www2.bartleby.com/173/23.html ).
Clearly we have REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM showing that Einstein's 1905
light postulate is false.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Inertial
>
>The famous clock (twin) paradox consists in a superimposition of
>absurdities. Originally we have RECIPROCAL time dilation - a direct
>consequence of Einstein's 1905 false light postulate:
Except you have no valid reason for claiming it to be false.. all experiment
supports it as being correct
>I see your clock running SLOWER than mine by a factor of (1/gamma) and
>you see mine running SLOWER than yours by a factor of (1/gamma).
Yes .. that's mutual time dilation.
>In his 1905 paper Einstein superimposed another absurdity incompatible
>with the original one:
>
>At the end of your round trip both of us see your clock running SLOWER
>than mine by a factor of (1/gamma) and mine running FASTER than yours
>by a factor of gamma.
Nope. Try again.
>For a century the breathtaking question:
>
>What in your round trip has made my clock run FASTER?
The change in rest frame of reference for the travelling twin .. its been
answered for a century. Where have you been?
[snip more nonsense and lies]