Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
GIVING UP SANITY FOR CONSTANT SPEED OF LIGHT
39 views
Skip to first unread message
Pentcho Valev
May 8, 2013, 5:41:09 PM5/8/13
to
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html
Steve Carlip: "To state that the speed of light is independent of the velocity of the observer is very counterintuitive. Some people even refuse to accept this as a logically consistent possibility, but in 1905 Einstein was able to show that it is perfectly consistent if you are prepared to give up assumptions about the absolute nature of space and time."
Procrusteanizing space and time in conformity with a "very counterintuitive" statement is insane of course but that insanity is not enough. In the following video the observer starts moving away from the light source with speed v and sane people see the frequency shift from f to f'=(c-v)/L and the speed of the light waves (relative to the observer) shift from c to c'=c-v. Sane people neither see nor can imagine the wavelength, L, varying with the speed of the moving observer. Dr. Ricardo Eusebi and Einsteinians all over the world agree that the frequency shifts from f to f'=(c-v)/L but, unlike sane people, they see the wavelength shift from L to L'=cL/(c-v) so that the speed of the light waves relative to the observer can gloriously remain constant, c'=f'L'=c, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EVzUyE2oD1w
Dr Ricardo Eusebi: "f'=f(1+v/c). Light frequency is relative to the observer. The velocity is not though. The velocity is the same in all the reference frames."
The most insane Einsteinians believe that the motion of the observer can change the wavelength of sound waves as well:
http://www.lp2i-poitiers.fr/doc/aps/albatros/fr/pages/doppleffet.html
"L'observateur se rapproche de la source. Il reçoit une onde de longueur d'onde plus petite (de fréquence plus grande) que celle émise par la source."
See more here:
http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Valev_Shift_in_Frequency_Im.pdf
Shift in Frequency Implies Shift in Speed of Light
Pentcho Valev
Steve Carlip: "To state that the speed of light is independent of the velocity of the observer is very counterintuitive. Some people even refuse to accept this as a logically consistent possibility, but in 1905 Einstein was able to show that it is perfectly consistent if you are prepared to give up assumptions about the absolute nature of space and time."
Procrusteanizing space and time in conformity with a "very counterintuitive" statement is insane of course but that insanity is not enough. In the following video the observer starts moving away from the light source with speed v and sane people see the frequency shift from f to f'=(c-v)/L and the speed of the light waves (relative to the observer) shift from c to c'=c-v. Sane people neither see nor can imagine the wavelength, L, varying with the speed of the moving observer. Dr. Ricardo Eusebi and Einsteinians all over the world agree that the frequency shifts from f to f'=(c-v)/L but, unlike sane people, they see the wavelength shift from L to L'=cL/(c-v) so that the speed of the light waves relative to the observer can gloriously remain constant, c'=f'L'=c, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EVzUyE2oD1w
Dr Ricardo Eusebi: "f'=f(1+v/c). Light frequency is relative to the observer. The velocity is not though. The velocity is the same in all the reference frames."
The most insane Einsteinians believe that the motion of the observer can change the wavelength of sound waves as well:
http://www.lp2i-poitiers.fr/doc/aps/albatros/fr/pages/doppleffet.html
"L'observateur se rapproche de la source. Il reçoit une onde de longueur d'onde plus petite (de fréquence plus grande) que celle émise par la source."
See more here:
http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Valev_Shift_in_Frequency_Im.pdf
Shift in Frequency Implies Shift in Speed of Light
Pentcho Valev
Don Stockbauer
May 9, 2013, 2:03:47 PM5/9/13
to
Einstein-what a magnificent neuron of the Global Brain.
Pentcho Valev
May 9, 2013, 6:00:00 PM5/9/13
to
Remnants of sanity in Divine Albert's world: For any waves (light waves included), the speed of the waves relative to the observer varies with the speed of the observer, in violation of special relativity:
http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php
"vO is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + vO. (...) The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time."
http://www.donbosco-tournai.be/expo-db/www/CDEXPO/Ondes_fichiers/EffetDoppler.pdf
"La variation de la fréquence observée lorsqu'il y a mouvement relatif entre la source et l'observateur est appelée effet Doppler. (...) 6. Source immobile - Observateur en mouvement: La distance entre les crêtes, la longueur d'onde lambda ne change pas. Mais la vitesse des crêtes par rapport à l'observateur change !"
http://www.radartutorial.eu/11.coherent/co06.fr.html
"L'effet Doppler est le décalage de fréquence d'une onde acoustique ou électromagnétique entre la mesure à l'émission et la mesure à la réception lorsque la distance entre l'émetteur et le récepteur varie au cours du temps. (...) Pour comprendre ce phénomène, il s'agit de penser à une onde à une fréquence donnée qui est émise vers un observateur en mouvement, ou vis-versa. LA LONGUEUR D'ONDE DU SIGNAL EST CONSTANTE mais si l'observateur se rapproche de la source, il se déplace vers les fronts d'ondes successifs et perçoit donc plus d'ondes par seconde que s'il était resté stationnaire, donc une augmentation de la fréquence. De la même manière, s'il s'éloigne de la source, les fronts d'onde l'atteindront avec un retard qui dépend de sa vitesse d'éloignement, donc une diminution de la fréquence. Dans le cas sonore, cela se traduit par un son plus aigu lors d'un rapprochement de la source et un son plus grave en s'éloignant de celle-ci. Dans le domaine de la lumière visible, on parle de décalage vers le bleu pour un rapprochement et vers le rouge dans le cas d'éloignement en se référant au spectre lumineux. La même chose s'applique à toutes les gammes d'ondes électromagnétiques dont les ondes utilisées par les radars."
http://physics.ucsd.edu/students/courses/summer2011/session1/physics2c/Waves.pdf
"Doppler effect (...) Let u be speed of source or observer (...) Doppler Shift: Moving Observer. Shift in frequency only, wavelength does not change. Speed observed = v+u (...) Observed frequency shift f'=f(1±u/v)"
http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp06/class19/class19_doppler.html
"The Doppler effect is the shift in frequency of a wave that occurs when the wave source, or the detector of the wave, is moving. Applications of the Doppler effect range from medical tests using ultrasound to radar detectors and astronomy (with electromagnetic waves). (...) We will focus on sound waves in describing the Doppler effect, but it works for other waves too. (...) Let's say you, the observer, now move toward the source with velocity vO. You encounter more waves per unit time than you did before. Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed: v'=v+vO. The frequency of the waves you detect is higher, and is given by: f'=v'/(lambda)=(v+vO)/(lambda)."
http://www.usna.edu/Users/physics/mungan/Scholarship/DopplerEffect.pdf
"Consider the case where the observer moves toward the source. In this case, the observer is rushing head-long into the wavefronts, so that we expect v'>v. In fact, the wave speed is simply increased by the observer speed, as we can see by jumping into the observer's frame of reference. Thus, v'=v+v_o=v(1+v_o/v). Finally, the frequency must increase by exactly the same factor as the wave speed increased, in order to ensure that L'=L -> v'/f'=v/f. Putting everything together, we thus have: OBSERVER MOVING TOWARD SOURCE: L'=L; f'=f(1+v_o/v); v'=v+v_o."
The interpretation of the Doppler effect (moving observer) given in the texts above is simple and obviously correct and this makes it a nightmare in Divine Albert's world: were Einsteinians to admit that the shift in frequency is caused by a shift in the speed of the light waves relative to the observer, "they would be faced with the embarrassing question of why this had not been noticed earlier":
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a909857880
Peter Hayes "The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox" : Social Epistemology, Volume 23, Issue 1 January 2009, pages 57-78: "The gatekeepers of professional physics in the universities and research institutes are disinclined to support or employ anyone who raises problems over the elementary inconsistencies of relativity. A winnowing out process has made it very difficult for critics of Einstein to achieve or maintain professional status. Relativists are then able to use the argument of authority to discredit these critics. Were relativists to admit that Einstein may have made a series of elementary logical errors, they would be faced with the embarrassing question of why this had not been noticed earlier. Under these circumstances the marginalisation of antirelativists, unjustified on scientific grounds, is eminently justifiable on grounds of realpolitik. Supporters of relativity theory have protected both the theory and their own reputations by shutting their opponents out of professional discourse."
Pentcho Valev
http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php
"vO is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + vO. (...) The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time."
http://www.donbosco-tournai.be/expo-db/www/CDEXPO/Ondes_fichiers/EffetDoppler.pdf
"La variation de la fréquence observée lorsqu'il y a mouvement relatif entre la source et l'observateur est appelée effet Doppler. (...) 6. Source immobile - Observateur en mouvement: La distance entre les crêtes, la longueur d'onde lambda ne change pas. Mais la vitesse des crêtes par rapport à l'observateur change !"
http://www.radartutorial.eu/11.coherent/co06.fr.html
"L'effet Doppler est le décalage de fréquence d'une onde acoustique ou électromagnétique entre la mesure à l'émission et la mesure à la réception lorsque la distance entre l'émetteur et le récepteur varie au cours du temps. (...) Pour comprendre ce phénomène, il s'agit de penser à une onde à une fréquence donnée qui est émise vers un observateur en mouvement, ou vis-versa. LA LONGUEUR D'ONDE DU SIGNAL EST CONSTANTE mais si l'observateur se rapproche de la source, il se déplace vers les fronts d'ondes successifs et perçoit donc plus d'ondes par seconde que s'il était resté stationnaire, donc une augmentation de la fréquence. De la même manière, s'il s'éloigne de la source, les fronts d'onde l'atteindront avec un retard qui dépend de sa vitesse d'éloignement, donc une diminution de la fréquence. Dans le cas sonore, cela se traduit par un son plus aigu lors d'un rapprochement de la source et un son plus grave en s'éloignant de celle-ci. Dans le domaine de la lumière visible, on parle de décalage vers le bleu pour un rapprochement et vers le rouge dans le cas d'éloignement en se référant au spectre lumineux. La même chose s'applique à toutes les gammes d'ondes électromagnétiques dont les ondes utilisées par les radars."
http://physics.ucsd.edu/students/courses/summer2011/session1/physics2c/Waves.pdf
"Doppler effect (...) Let u be speed of source or observer (...) Doppler Shift: Moving Observer. Shift in frequency only, wavelength does not change. Speed observed = v+u (...) Observed frequency shift f'=f(1±u/v)"
http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp06/class19/class19_doppler.html
"The Doppler effect is the shift in frequency of a wave that occurs when the wave source, or the detector of the wave, is moving. Applications of the Doppler effect range from medical tests using ultrasound to radar detectors and astronomy (with electromagnetic waves). (...) We will focus on sound waves in describing the Doppler effect, but it works for other waves too. (...) Let's say you, the observer, now move toward the source with velocity vO. You encounter more waves per unit time than you did before. Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed: v'=v+vO. The frequency of the waves you detect is higher, and is given by: f'=v'/(lambda)=(v+vO)/(lambda)."
http://www.usna.edu/Users/physics/mungan/Scholarship/DopplerEffect.pdf
"Consider the case where the observer moves toward the source. In this case, the observer is rushing head-long into the wavefronts, so that we expect v'>v. In fact, the wave speed is simply increased by the observer speed, as we can see by jumping into the observer's frame of reference. Thus, v'=v+v_o=v(1+v_o/v). Finally, the frequency must increase by exactly the same factor as the wave speed increased, in order to ensure that L'=L -> v'/f'=v/f. Putting everything together, we thus have: OBSERVER MOVING TOWARD SOURCE: L'=L; f'=f(1+v_o/v); v'=v+v_o."
The interpretation of the Doppler effect (moving observer) given in the texts above is simple and obviously correct and this makes it a nightmare in Divine Albert's world: were Einsteinians to admit that the shift in frequency is caused by a shift in the speed of the light waves relative to the observer, "they would be faced with the embarrassing question of why this had not been noticed earlier":
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a909857880
Peter Hayes "The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox" : Social Epistemology, Volume 23, Issue 1 January 2009, pages 57-78: "The gatekeepers of professional physics in the universities and research institutes are disinclined to support or employ anyone who raises problems over the elementary inconsistencies of relativity. A winnowing out process has made it very difficult for critics of Einstein to achieve or maintain professional status. Relativists are then able to use the argument of authority to discredit these critics. Were relativists to admit that Einstein may have made a series of elementary logical errors, they would be faced with the embarrassing question of why this had not been noticed earlier. Under these circumstances the marginalisation of antirelativists, unjustified on scientific grounds, is eminently justifiable on grounds of realpolitik. Supporters of relativity theory have protected both the theory and their own reputations by shutting their opponents out of professional discourse."
Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
May 12, 2013, 4:29:22 AM5/12/13
to
http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/essay-einstein-relativity.htm
John Stachel: "But here he ran into the most blatant-seeming contradiction, which I mentioned earlier when first discussing the two principles. As noted then, the Maxwell-Lorentz equations imply that there exists (at least) one inertial frame in which the speed of light is a constant regardless of the motion of the light source. Einstein's version of the relativity principle (minus the ether) requires that, if this is true for one inertial frame, it must be true for all inertial frames. But this seems to be nonsense. How can it happen that the speed of light relative to an observer cannot be increased or decreased if that observer moves towards or away from a light beam?"
This IS nonsense. For any waves, if the observer starts moving towards the wave source with speed v, the frequency he measures shifts from f=c/L to:
f' = (c+v)/L
where c is the speed of the waves relative to a stationary observer and L is the wavelength. That is, for any waves (light waves included), the fact that the wavecrests start hitting the observer more frequently is due to the fact that the speed of the waves relative to the observer has increased. In other words, the speed of the waves shifts from c to:
c' = c+v
It takes Bingo the Einsteiniano to blatantly teach that the motion of the observer miraculously decreases the wavelength (L'<L) so that, as the frequency increases (f'>f), their product, the speed of the light waves, gloriously remains constant, c'=f'L'=c, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity:
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/big_bang_observed/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)."
Bingo the Einsteiniano is the name of any person in Divine Albert's world who has undergone special brainwashing in Einsteiniana, brainwashing very similar to the one undergone by an unfortunate creature called Bingo the Clowno:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kACHU5eSwQ
Bingo !!! Bingo the Clown-O!!!
Pentcho Valev
John Stachel: "But here he ran into the most blatant-seeming contradiction, which I mentioned earlier when first discussing the two principles. As noted then, the Maxwell-Lorentz equations imply that there exists (at least) one inertial frame in which the speed of light is a constant regardless of the motion of the light source. Einstein's version of the relativity principle (minus the ether) requires that, if this is true for one inertial frame, it must be true for all inertial frames. But this seems to be nonsense. How can it happen that the speed of light relative to an observer cannot be increased or decreased if that observer moves towards or away from a light beam?"
This IS nonsense. For any waves, if the observer starts moving towards the wave source with speed v, the frequency he measures shifts from f=c/L to:
f' = (c+v)/L
where c is the speed of the waves relative to a stationary observer and L is the wavelength. That is, for any waves (light waves included), the fact that the wavecrests start hitting the observer more frequently is due to the fact that the speed of the waves relative to the observer has increased. In other words, the speed of the waves shifts from c to:
c' = c+v
It takes Bingo the Einsteiniano to blatantly teach that the motion of the observer miraculously decreases the wavelength (L'<L) so that, as the frequency increases (f'>f), their product, the speed of the light waves, gloriously remains constant, c'=f'L'=c, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity:
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/big_bang_observed/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)."
Bingo the Einsteiniano is the name of any person in Divine Albert's world who has undergone special brainwashing in Einsteiniana, brainwashing very similar to the one undergone by an unfortunate creature called Bingo the Clowno:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kACHU5eSwQ
Bingo !!! Bingo the Clown-O!!!
Pentcho Valev
Don Stockbauer
May 12, 2013, 8:06:49 AM5/12/13
to
sped light measure sam by obs regard of rel vel betw soucr and onserver but wavelen will change. an dats de truff,
edict ann
edict ann
Tom Roberts
May 13, 2013, 11:16:20 AM5/13/13
to
It is not "sanity" that must be given up. Instead, to believe that SR is wrong
one must give up AGREEMENT WITH EXPERIMENTS. As such agreement is the sine qua
non of science, Valev has abandoned science.
On 5/12/13 5/12/13 - 3:29 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/essay-einstein-relativity.htm John
> Stachel: "But here he ran into the most blatant-seeming contradiction, which
> I mentioned earlier when first discussing the two principles. As noted then,
> the Maxwell-Lorentz equations imply that there exists (at least) one inertial
> frame in which the speed of light is a constant regardless of the motion of
> the light source. Einstein's version of the relativity principle (minus the
> ether) requires that, if this is true for one inertial frame, it must be true
> for all inertial frames. But this seems to be nonsense. How can it happen
> that the speed of light relative to an observer cannot be increased or
> decreased if that observer moves towards or away from a light beam?"
>
> This IS nonsense. For any waves, if the observer starts moving towards the
> wave source with speed v, the frequency he measures shifts from f=c/L to:
> f' = (c+v)/L
It is not nonsense. Your claim is FACTUALLY WRONG. You are ignoring a
relativistic correction, which is necessary for agreement with experiments. The
wavelength of the light measured by the observer also changes when the observer
starts moving toward or away from the light source -- this is ROUTINELY MEASURED
by essentially every telescope on earth or in orbit (this is the annual Doppler
effect).
Yes, Pentcho Valev has chosen to play the part of a clown. He repeatedly ignores
experimental evidence that shows his claims are BLATANTLY WRONG.
Tom Roberts
one must give up AGREEMENT WITH EXPERIMENTS. As such agreement is the sine qua
non of science, Valev has abandoned science.
On 5/12/13 5/12/13 - 3:29 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/essay-einstein-relativity.htm John
> Stachel: "But here he ran into the most blatant-seeming contradiction, which
> I mentioned earlier when first discussing the two principles. As noted then,
> the Maxwell-Lorentz equations imply that there exists (at least) one inertial
> frame in which the speed of light is a constant regardless of the motion of
> the light source. Einstein's version of the relativity principle (minus the
> ether) requires that, if this is true for one inertial frame, it must be true
> for all inertial frames. But this seems to be nonsense. How can it happen
> that the speed of light relative to an observer cannot be increased or
> decreased if that observer moves towards or away from a light beam?"
>
> This IS nonsense. For any waves, if the observer starts moving towards the
> wave source with speed v, the frequency he measures shifts from f=c/L to:
> f' = (c+v)/L
relativistic correction, which is necessary for agreement with experiments. The
wavelength of the light measured by the observer also changes when the observer
starts moving toward or away from the light source -- this is ROUTINELY MEASURED
by essentially every telescope on earth or in orbit (this is the annual Doppler
effect).
Yes, Pentcho Valev has chosen to play the part of a clown. He repeatedly ignores
experimental evidence that shows his claims are BLATANTLY WRONG.
Tom Roberts
Pentcho Valev
May 13, 2013, 5:16:55 PM5/13/13
to
On Monday, May 13, 2013 Tom Roberts (Honest Roberts) wrote:
> On 5/12/13 5/12/13 - 3:29 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/essay-einstein-relativity.htm John
> > Stachel: "But here he ran into the most blatant-seeming contradiction, which
> > I mentioned earlier when first discussing the two principles. As noted then,
> > the Maxwell-Lorentz equations imply that there exists (at least) one inertial
> > frame in which the speed of light is a constant regardless of the motion of
> > the light source. Einstein's version of the relativity principle (minus the
> > ether) requires that, if this is true for one inertial frame, it must be true
> > for all inertial frames. But this seems to be nonsense. How can it happen
> > that the speed of light relative to an observer cannot be increased or
> > decreased if that observer moves towards or away from a light beam?"
> >
> > This IS nonsense. For any waves, if the observer starts moving towards the
> > wave source with speed v, the frequency he measures shifts from f=c/L to:
> > f' = (c+v)/L
>
>
>
> It is not nonsense. Your claim is FACTUALLY WRONG. You are ignoring a
> relativistic correction...
> On 5/12/13 5/12/13 - 3:29 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/essay-einstein-relativity.htm John
> > Stachel: "But here he ran into the most blatant-seeming contradiction, which
> > I mentioned earlier when first discussing the two principles. As noted then,
> > the Maxwell-Lorentz equations imply that there exists (at least) one inertial
> > frame in which the speed of light is a constant regardless of the motion of
> > the light source. Einstein's version of the relativity principle (minus the
> > ether) requires that, if this is true for one inertial frame, it must be true
> > for all inertial frames. But this seems to be nonsense. How can it happen
> > that the speed of light relative to an observer cannot be increased or
> > decreased if that observer moves towards or away from a light beam?"
> >
> > This IS nonsense. For any waves, if the observer starts moving towards the
> > wave source with speed v, the frequency he measures shifts from f=c/L to:
> > f' = (c+v)/L
>
>
>
> It is not nonsense. Your claim is FACTUALLY WRONG. You are ignoring a
Honest Roberts,
How many times can you repeat the same red herring? You know that, when v is low enough, relativistic corrections are negligible and the frequency shifts from f=c/L to f'=f(1+v/c)=(c+v)/L:
http://rockpile.phys.virginia.edu/mod04/mod34.pdf
Paul Fendley: "Now let's see what this does to the frequency of the light. We know that even without special relativity, observers moving at different velocities measure different frequencies. (This is the reason the pitch of an ambulance changes as it passes you it doesn't change if you're on the ambulance). This is called the Doppler shift, and for small relative velocity v it is easy to show that the frequency shifts from f to f(1+v/c) (it goes up heading toward you, down away from you). There are relativistic corrections, but these are negligible here."
Accordingly, Honest Roberts, the speed of light relative to the observer shifts from c=fL to c'=f'L=c+v. No? Do you claim that the wavelength shifts from L to L'=cL/(c+v) so that the speed of light relative to the observer can gloriously shift from c=fL to c'=f'L'=c, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity?
Pentcho Valev
Tom Roberts
May 14, 2013, 12:27:42 AM5/14/13
to
On 5/13/13 5/13/13 4:16 PM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> On Monday, May 13, 2013 Tom Roberts (Honest Roberts) wrote:
>> On 5/12/13 5/12/13 - 3:29 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>>> http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/essay-einstein-relativity.htm John
>>> Stachel: "But here he ran into the most blatant-seeming contradiction,
>>> which I mentioned earlier when first discussing the two principles. As
>>> noted then, the Maxwell-Lorentz equations imply that there exists (at
>>> least) one inertial frame in which the speed of light is a constant
>>> regardless of the motion of the light source. Einstein's version of the
>>> relativity principle (minus the ether) requires that, if this is true for
>>> one inertial frame, it must be true for all inertial frames. But this
>>> seems to be nonsense. How can it happen that the speed of light relative
>>> to an observer cannot be increased or decreased if that observer moves
>>> towards or away from a light beam?"
>>>
>>> This IS nonsense. For any waves, if the observer starts moving towards
>>> the wave source with speed v, the frequency he measures shifts from f=c/L
>>> to: f' = (c+v)/L
>> It is not nonsense. Your claim is FACTUALLY WRONG. You are ignoring a
>> relativistic correction...
>
> On Monday, May 13, 2013 Tom Roberts (Honest Roberts) wrote:
>> On 5/12/13 5/12/13 - 3:29 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>>> http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/essay-einstein-relativity.htm John
>>> Stachel: "But here he ran into the most blatant-seeming contradiction,
>>> which I mentioned earlier when first discussing the two principles. As
>>> noted then, the Maxwell-Lorentz equations imply that there exists (at
>>> least) one inertial frame in which the speed of light is a constant
>>> regardless of the motion of the light source. Einstein's version of the
>>> relativity principle (minus the ether) requires that, if this is true for
>>> one inertial frame, it must be true for all inertial frames. But this
>>> seems to be nonsense. How can it happen that the speed of light relative
>>> to an observer cannot be increased or decreased if that observer moves
>>> towards or away from a light beam?"
>>>
>>> This IS nonsense. For any waves, if the observer starts moving towards
>>> the wave source with speed v, the frequency he measures shifts from f=c/L
>>> to: f' = (c+v)/L
>> It is not nonsense. Your claim is FACTUALLY WRONG. You are ignoring a
>> relativistic correction...
>
> How many times can you repeat the same red herring? You know that, when v is
> low enough, relativistic corrections are negligible and the frequency shifts
> from f=c/L to f'=f(1+v/c)=(c+v)/L
It is NOT a "red herring", it is a factual statement about the world we inhabit.
> low enough, relativistic corrections are negligible and the frequency shifts
> from f=c/L to f'=f(1+v/c)=(c+v)/L
In particular, if v is small enough that you can ignore the relativistic
corrections, then you cannot distinguish c from c+v.
Moreover, if you can measure that frequency shift, you can ALSO measure the
similar shift in wavelength (both are first order in v/c). Indeed, the
wavelength shift is CONSIDERABLY easier to measure, as it was measured in the
mid 1800s for earth's orbital velocity (v/c ~ 0.0001), while the frequency shift
for that could not be measured until quite recently.
You are ignoring the effect on wavelength, which is the same order in v/c as the
effect on frequency. That makes your entire "analysis" invalid. You REALLY need
to learn how approximations are made....
> Accordingly, Honest Roberts, the speed of light relative to the observer
> shifts from c=fL to c'=f'L=c+v. No?
with experiments. Remember the shift in wavelength is THE SAME ORDER IN v/c AS
THE SHIFT IN FREQUENCY.
This has nothing to do with "believing Einstein", it has to do with experimental
results, what science is, and how you are abusing it. Your personal ignorance
and arrogance prevent you from understanding it.
Tom Roberts
Pentcho Valev
May 16, 2013, 12:07:00 AM5/16/13
to
On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 5/13/13 5/13/13 4:16 PM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > How many times can you repeat the same red herring? You know that, when v is
> > low enough, relativistic corrections are negligible and the frequency shifts
> > from f=c/L to f'=f(1+v/c)=(c+v)/L
>
> It is NOT a "red herring", it is a factual statement about the world we inhabit.
> In particular, if v is small enough that you can ignore the relativistic
> corrections, then you cannot distinguish c from c+v.
Silly isn't it. I thought you were an intelligent (although dishonest) Einsteinian but now I see you are (or have degraded to) just a zombie.
> On 5/13/13 5/13/13 4:16 PM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > How many times can you repeat the same red herring? You know that, when v is
> > low enough, relativistic corrections are negligible and the frequency shifts
> > from f=c/L to f'=f(1+v/c)=(c+v)/L
>
> It is NOT a "red herring", it is a factual statement about the world we inhabit.
> In particular, if v is small enough that you can ignore the relativistic
> corrections, then you cannot distinguish c from c+v.
Pentcho Valev
space...@gmail.com
May 16, 2013, 1:54:22 AM5/16/13
to
On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 2:41:09 PM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html
You're attacking the wrongs side...
It is relativity that goes not the constant of light in empty space.
Eveything has its own motion in dimension distance.
Mitchell Raemsch
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html
You're attacking the wrongs side...
It is relativity that goes not the constant of light in empty space.
Eveything has its own motion in dimension distance.
Mitchell Raemsch
Pentcho Valev
May 21, 2013, 3:59:57 PM5/21/13
to
http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler
Albert Einstein Institute: "The frequency of a wave-like signal - such as sound or light - depends on the movement of the sender and of the receiver. This is known as the Doppler effect. (...) In the above paragraphs, we have only considered moving sources. In fact, a closer look at cases where it is the receiver that is in motion will show that this kind of motion leads to a very similar kind of Doppler effect. Here is an animation of the receiver moving towards the source: (...) By observing the two indicator lights, you can see for yourself that, once more, there is a blue-shift - the pulse frequency measured at the receiver is somewhat higher than the frequency with which the pulses are sent out. This time, the distances between subsequent pulses are not affected, but still there is a frequency shift: As the receiver moves towards each pulse, the time until pulse and receiver meet up is shortened. In this particular animation, which has the receiver moving towards the source at one third the speed of the pulses themselves, four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses."
(distance between subsequent pulses not affected)/(time until pulse and receiver meet up shortened) = (speed of pulses relative to receiver increased, in violation of special relativity)
Bingo the Einsteiniano: No! Help! Help! The speed of the pulses relative to the receiver has been constant for a century and will remain so forever! Divine Einstein! Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity!
http://www.haverford.edu/physics/songs/divine.htm
DIVINE EINSTEIN: No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein not Maxwell, Curie, or Bohr!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ
We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Everything is relative, even simultaneity, and soon Einstein's become a de facto physics deity. 'cos we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.
Pentcho Valev
Albert Einstein Institute: "The frequency of a wave-like signal - such as sound or light - depends on the movement of the sender and of the receiver. This is known as the Doppler effect. (...) In the above paragraphs, we have only considered moving sources. In fact, a closer look at cases where it is the receiver that is in motion will show that this kind of motion leads to a very similar kind of Doppler effect. Here is an animation of the receiver moving towards the source: (...) By observing the two indicator lights, you can see for yourself that, once more, there is a blue-shift - the pulse frequency measured at the receiver is somewhat higher than the frequency with which the pulses are sent out. This time, the distances between subsequent pulses are not affected, but still there is a frequency shift: As the receiver moves towards each pulse, the time until pulse and receiver meet up is shortened. In this particular animation, which has the receiver moving towards the source at one third the speed of the pulses themselves, four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses."
(distance between subsequent pulses not affected)/(time until pulse and receiver meet up shortened) = (speed of pulses relative to receiver increased, in violation of special relativity)
Bingo the Einsteiniano: No! Help! Help! The speed of the pulses relative to the receiver has been constant for a century and will remain so forever! Divine Einstein! Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity!
http://www.haverford.edu/physics/songs/divine.htm
DIVINE EINSTEIN: No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein not Maxwell, Curie, or Bohr!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ
We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Everything is relative, even simultaneity, and soon Einstein's become a de facto physics deity. 'cos we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.
Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
May 23, 2013, 10:41:04 AM5/23/13
to
Bingo the Einsteiniano: As light falls in a gravitational field, its energy increases by exactly the same fraction that it increases for any other thing we could imagine dropping but the analogy stops here - the speed of light does not increase at all. No it doesn't. Why? Simply because Divine Albert said the speed of light is constant, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity:
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-mc2-Should-Care/dp/0306817586
Why Does E=mc2?: (And Why Should We Care?), Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw, p. 236: "If the light falls in strict accord with the principle of equivalence, then, as it falls, its energy should increase by exactly the same fraction that it increases for any other thing we could imagine dropping. We need to know what happens to the light as it gains energy. In other words, what can Pound and Rebka expect to see at the bottom of their laboratory when the dropped light arrives? There is only one way for the light to increase its energy. We know that it cannot speed up, because it is already traveling at the universal speed limit, but it can increase its frequency."
Bingo the Einsteiniano: Divine Albert predicted that, as light falls in a gravitational field, its speed increases twice as fast as predicted by Newton. Why? Simply because Divine Albert is twice as great as Newton, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity:
http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm
"In the presence of gravity the speed of light becomes relative. To see the steps how Einstein theorized that the measured speed of light in a gravitational field is actually not a constant but rather a variable depending upon the reference frame of the observer: 'On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light', Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911. Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German. It predated the full formal development of general relativity by about four years. You can find an English translation of this paper in the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity' beginning on page 99; you will find in section 3 of that paper Einstein's derivation of the variable speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is: c'=c0(1+phi/c^2) where phi is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light co is measured. Simply put: Light appears to travel slower in stronger gravitational fields (near bigger mass). You can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from the full theory of general relativity in the weak field approximation: (...) For the 1955 results but not in coordinates see page 93, eqn (6.28): c(r)=[1+2phi(r)/c^2]c. Namely the 1955 approximation shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in 1911."
Pentcho Valev
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-mc2-Should-Care/dp/0306817586
Why Does E=mc2?: (And Why Should We Care?), Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw, p. 236: "If the light falls in strict accord with the principle of equivalence, then, as it falls, its energy should increase by exactly the same fraction that it increases for any other thing we could imagine dropping. We need to know what happens to the light as it gains energy. In other words, what can Pound and Rebka expect to see at the bottom of their laboratory when the dropped light arrives? There is only one way for the light to increase its energy. We know that it cannot speed up, because it is already traveling at the universal speed limit, but it can increase its frequency."
Bingo the Einsteiniano: Divine Albert predicted that, as light falls in a gravitational field, its speed increases twice as fast as predicted by Newton. Why? Simply because Divine Albert is twice as great as Newton, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity:
http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm
"In the presence of gravity the speed of light becomes relative. To see the steps how Einstein theorized that the measured speed of light in a gravitational field is actually not a constant but rather a variable depending upon the reference frame of the observer: 'On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light', Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911. Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German. It predated the full formal development of general relativity by about four years. You can find an English translation of this paper in the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity' beginning on page 99; you will find in section 3 of that paper Einstein's derivation of the variable speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is: c'=c0(1+phi/c^2) where phi is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light co is measured. Simply put: Light appears to travel slower in stronger gravitational fields (near bigger mass). You can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from the full theory of general relativity in the weak field approximation: (...) For the 1955 results but not in coordinates see page 93, eqn (6.28): c(r)=[1+2phi(r)/c^2]c. Namely the 1955 approximation shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in 1911."
Pentcho Valev
0 new messages