EINSTEINIANA'S ACHILLES' HEEL
Pentcho Valev
frequency f and speed c (relative to the source). The light reaches an
observer on the ground with frequency f' and speed c' (relative to the
observer).
Equivalently, a light source at the front end of an accelerating
rocket of length h and accelaration g emits light with frequency f and
speed c (relative to the source). The light reaches an observer at the
back end with frequency f' and speed c' (relative to the observer).
Consider equation (13.2) on p. 3 in:
http://student.fizika.org/~jsisko/Knjige/Klasicna%20Mehanika/David%20Morin/CH13.PDF
f' = f(1+v/c) = f(1+gh/c^2) (13.2)
where v is the relative speed of the light source (at the moment of
emission) and the observer (at the moment of reception) in the rocket
scenario. By combining this equation with:
(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
we obtain THE FUNDAMENTAL EQUATIONS OF NEWTON'S EMISSION THEORY OF
LIGHT:
c' = c+v = c(1+gh/c^2)
which CONTRADICT EINSTEIN'S 1905 FALSE LIGHT POSTULATE.
Einstein explicitly used the equation c'=c(1+gh/c^2) in the period
1907-1915, then replaced it with c'=c(1+2gh/c^2).
David Morin's text referred to above reappears as Chapter 14 in:
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/book.html
Introduction to Classical Mechanics
With Problems and Solutions
David Morin
Cambridge University Press
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
bert
> A light source on top of a tower of height h emits light with
> frequency f and speed c (relative to the source). The light reaches an
> observer on the ground with frequency f' and speed c' (relative to the
> observer).
>
> Equivalently, a light source at the front end of an accelerating
> rocket of length h and accelaration g emits light with frequency f and
> speed c (relative to the source). The light reaches an observer at the
> back end with frequency f' and speed c' (relative to the observer).
>
> Consider equation (13.2) on p. 3 in:
>
> f' = f(1+v/c) = f(1+gh/c^2) (13.2)
>
> where v is the relative speed of the light source (at the moment of
> emission) and the observer (at the moment of reception) in the rocket
> scenario. By combining this equation with:
>
> (frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
>
> we obtain THE FUNDAMENTAL EQUATIONS OF NEWTON'S EMISSION THEORY OF
> LIGHT:
>
> c' = c+v = c(1+gh/c^2)
>
> which CONTRADICT EINSTEIN'S 1905 FALSE LIGHT POSTULATE.
>
> Einstein explicitly used the equation c'=c(1+gh/c^2) in the period
> 1907-1915, then replaced it with c'=c(1+2gh/c^2).
>
> David Morin's text referred to above reappears as Chapter 14 in:
>
> http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/book.html
> Introduction to Classical Mechanics
> With Problems and Solutions
> David Morin
> Cambridge University Press
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com
WRONG Einstein was right. TreBert
Androcles
"bert" <herbertg...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:5027177a-b37d-44ef...@a36g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
==========================
IDIOT Trebert is a moron.
Uncle Ben
wrote:
> "bert" <herbertglazie...@msn.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
If Einstein were not right, none of the world's particle accelerators
would work.
Uncle Ben
Androcles
"Uncle Ben" <b...@greenba.com> wrote in message
news:59f5e7d7-a510-40bb...@k10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
Uncle Ben
=========================================
Well then, that proves my point. None of the world's particle accelerators
do work. Still no Higgs.
Bonehead logic:
If bicycle wheels were not elliptical with eccentricity = sqrt(1-b^2/a^2)
none of the world's bicycles would work.
http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2007/09/28/body-sway-drives-eccentric-bicycle-15-miles-per-hour/ Of course Bonehead has never heard of Einstein's eccentricity.
xxein
> frequency f and speed c (relative to the source). The light reaches an
> observer on the ground with frequency f' and speed c' (relative to the
> observer).
>
>
xxein: This has got to be the most misunderstood concept in the
history of the physic. What would compel you to think that light left
the top of the tower at speed c? Einstein, whom you are trying to
prove wrong? Can you measure the one-way speed of light? Not without
2 spacially separated clocks, you can't. How do you syncronize them?
With the assumption that c is always c over a set distance?
f' and c'? How do they get a measured value? Not with what you
describe. If f=1 and h=2000 meters how do you calculate c'? You
don't. The observer on the ground still measures c as c using his own
syncronized clocks and distance.
Let's change h to r. Can you measure timerate as a function of r and
mass in gravity? Can you measure an escape velocity? If you can, you
will find that timerate in gravity [ (1-(2*M/r))^.5 (M = mass in
meters and is derived from M = m*G / c^2)) ], has a direct correlation
to the escape velocity of the emitters in a gravity. And why not?
(2*M*c^2/r)^.5 is the escape velocity. That escape velocity along
with (1-(v/c)^2)^.5 for timerate yields the same results as (1-(2*M/
r))^.5 to E16.
Here, I would like to point out that remaining stationary wrt r in a
gravity, has a constant escape velocity. That escape velocity/c is
the v/c for figuring out the timerate. But you can still move at a
constant r, can't you (like circularly orbiting)? Well? Now you you
have to do vectors. Simple vectors.
Circular orbit velocity^2 + escape velocity^2 = the square of v/c for
figuring out a timerate. If you know anything about what you are
doing, you will realize that escv at 2r = orbv at r.
Now what should you measure at the bottom of the tower? As I stated,
you will still measure c as c. But you will measure a different
frequency (for preset emitters). This is a difference in your
timerates. The frequency emitted will not change. You can prove this
by having someone drop leaves into an accelerating water flow. The
frequency of the dropped leaves will pass you at the same frequency
you measure as the flow accelerates to your measuring position
downstream. Can you even grasp that?
The same with light frequency. An acceleration of light frequency
can't affect what you measure, either, unless you have a different
clockrate. Then, if you have a slower clockrate, the frequency will
be measured as greater.
What this leads to is the false assumption that some accept for the
Pound-Rebka experimental conclusion that light will gain an energy
from the tower to the ground. But read this carefully. Did the
frequency change, or did your clock? Remember (1-(2*M/r))^.5? Most
all will say simply that the frequency controls energy. Well it does,
but did the emitter gain energy while 'there' or did your slower clock
make it seem so?
But there is another factor to consider also. Frequency and it's
effects ar non-linear. So what else is involved? Momentum. Light
also gains momentum as it comes downward to a lesser r, just as the
leaves in the increasing flow of water.
So? Take all this and think logically. What would give a momentum to
light traveling downward in a gravity?
So what is the flow that light follows?
Pentcho Valev
is the Achilles' heel of Einsteiniana because the problem can be
clearly set and there is no perfect camouflage:
Newton's emission theory of light says c'=c(1+gh/c^2), Einstein's
general relativity says c'=c(1+2gh/c^2), the Pound-Rebka experiment
says f'=f(1+gh/c^2). Is the Pound-Rebka experiment compatible with
Newton's emission theory of light or is it compatible with Einstein's
general relativity?
Einsteiniana managed to convince the world that the Pound-Rebka
experiment is a glorious confirmation of Einstein's general relativity
but the process was essentially based on Goebbels' principle: you
repeat a lie often enough and eventually it becomes truth.
In 1887 an analogous problem could have been set even more clearly:
Newton's emission theory of light says c'=c+v, the ether theory says
c'=c, the Michelson-Morley experiment says c'=c+v. Is the Michelson-
Morley experiment compatible with Newton's emission theory of light or
is it compatible with the ether theory?
However Fitzgerald, Lorentz and Einstein procrusteanized the world
into conformity with a system of ad hoc auxiliary hypotheses
("protective belt", in Lakatos' terminology). In the new world one is
entitled to set the problem in the following way:
Newton's emission theory of light says c'=c+v, Einstein's special
relativity says c'=c, the Michelson-Morley experiment says c'=c. Is
the Michelson-Morley experiment compatible with Newton's emission
theory of light or is it compatible with Einstein's special
relativity?
Pentcho Valev wrote:
A light source on top of a tower of height h emits light with
frequency f and speed c (relative to the source). The light reaches an
observer on the ground with frequency f' and speed c' (relative to the
observer).
Equivalently, a light source at the front end of an accelerating
rocket of length h and accelaration g emits light with frequency f and
speed c (relative to the source). The light reaches an observer at the
back end with frequency f' and speed c' (relative to the observer).
Consider equation (13.2) on p. 3 in:
http://student.fizika.org/~jsisko/Knjige/Klasicna%20Mehanika/David%20Morin/CH13.PDF
bill
> On Aug 27, 12:43 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > A light source on top of a tower of height h emits light with
> > frequency f and speed c (relative to the source). The light reaches an
> > observer on the ground with frequency f' and speed c' (relative to the
> > observer).
>
> xxein: This has got to be the most misunderstood concept in the
> history of the physic. What would compel you to think that light left
> the top of the tower at speed c? Einstein, whom you are trying to
> prove wrong? Can you measure the one-way speed of light? Not without
> 2 spacially separated clocks, you can't. How do you syncronize them?
> With the assumption that c is always c over a set distance?
It is noted that, as far as I can see, none of the responses to
Pentcho's OP make reference to the comment -
> Equivalently, a light source at the front end of an accelerating
> rocket of length h and accelaration g emits light with frequency f and
> speed c (relative to the source). The light reaches an observer at the
> back end with frequency f' and speed c' (relative to the observer).
Why is this argument ignored?
On the basis of the principle of equivalence - there is no difference
whatsoever between what takes place when the ship is accelerating or
if it is in a fixed location relative to a gravitational field i.e. a
light source at the top of a tower.
> If f=1 and h=2000 meters how do you calculate c'? You
> don't. The observer on the ground still measures c as c using his own
> syncronized clocks and distance.
The clocks employed by the observer on the ground (i.e. clocks that
are located at the top and at the bottom of the tower) are _not_
synchronous.
According to GR, the clock at the top of the tower will be ticking
over at a faster rate than the clock at the base of the tower.
Unfortunately my innumeracy prevents my being able to respond to
mathematical 'proofs' to the contrary ergo others would have to take
up the cudgel however it is my belief that if an argument cannot be
expressed in simple everyday language it has no application to
reality.
xxein
xxein: Good point, but let me add that the tower will have a physical
length contraction that varies with the variable escape velocities
along h or r.
Now to you. Pentco said:
> Equivalently, a light source at the front end of an accelerating
> rocket of length h and accelaration g emits light with frequency f and
> speed c (relative to the source). The light reaches an observer at the
> back end with frequency f' and speed c' (relative to the observer).
Not equivalent. If you release a sphere of separate ball from the
tower to the ground, they will form an elongated egg shape. Not so
from the front to back of the ship.
We know that being inside of a constant velocity ship will look,
measure and feel the same as if it were not moving. But it requires a
physical length contraction to make the numbers work out. Not just a
naked postulate.
An accelerating ship is not physically that different, but the numbers
get more complicated to figure out. Remember that acceleration, in
itself, is not a contributor to time dilation.
Do you know why there is a velocity addition? I'm not talking about
the formula. I'm talking about why it is a physical effect. It's
easy to understand if you have the gumption to do a real examination
of the physic. Light is not emitted at c relative to the source - nor
is it received as c. But that is the only way we can measure it and
it gives logical and physical inconsistancies.
But what the heck. Just declare a postulate and don't worry about how
it really happens.
bill
The question is not in relation to the light's rate of travel along
various sections of the tower but its speed when it arrives at the
base of the tower.
A measuring rod suspended from the top of the tower will be
_elongated_ compared with its length when it is placed horizontally at
the base of the tower.
The same rod when standing on its end will be _shorter_ than it is
when placed horizontally at the base of the tower.
> Now to you. Pentco said:
>
> > Equivalently, a light source at the front end of an accelerating
> > rocket of length h and accelaration g emits light with frequency f and
> > speed c (relative to the source). The light reaches an observer at the
> > back end with frequency f' and speed c' (relative to the observer).
>
> Not equivalent. If you release a sphere of separate ball from the
> tower to the ground, they will form an elongated egg shape. Not so
> from the front to back of the ship.
It makes no difference whatsoever what shape the ball of light takes;
it is the two specific extremities of the ball that are relevant.
However, according to the principle of equivalence - if we have a very
large cube shaped room that is at rest on the surface of a
gravitational source a ball of light emitted from a central light
source will take the same shape as a ball of light emitted from a
centrally located light source if the ship is accelerating.
If this is not so then the principle of equivalence is, in this event,
not valid.
> We know that being inside of a constant velocity ship will look,
> measure and feel the same as if it were not moving. But it requires a
> physical length contraction to make the numbers work out. Not just a
> naked postulate.
It does _not_ require any physical length contraction to determine
that a ball of light emitted by a centrally located source expands
isotropically relative to its source.
> Do you know why there is a velocity addition? I'm not talking about
> the formula. I'm talking about why it is a physical effect. It's
> easy to understand if you have the gumption to do a real examination
> of the physic. Light is not emitted at c relative to the source - nor
> is it received as c. But that is the only way we can measure it and
> it gives logical and physical inconsistancies.
I fail to see where the topic of velocity additions comes into it. In
both depictions the light sources are _stationary_ in the observer’s
reference frames.
It is the 'logical and physical inconsistencies' that some of us are
attempting to overcome.
Spirit
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ben, Ben , Ben, did you learn nothing?
:)
Lack of simultaneity is false in this here universe of ours. There is
no way "Einstein is - completely - right"
Spirit of Truth
Inertial
news:d221a16c-1dfa-4e87...@f20g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
>Lack of simultaneity is false in this here universe of ours. There is
>no way "Einstein is - completely - right"
Except experiment shows you are wrong. Try again
BURT
There is always a universal instant throughout the universe
as clocks everywhere are always ticking away.
Mitch Raemsch
Pentcho Valev
Newton's emission theory of light says c'=c(1+gh/c^2).
Einstein's relativity says c'=c(1+2gh/c^2).
The Pound-Rebka experiment says f'=f(1+gh/c^2).
is so dangerous for Einsteiniana that it is difficult to find an
explicit reference to any of the three statements in the relativistic
literature, let alone finding an explicit reference to the whole
triad. David Morin (see below) does let you know that "the Pound-Rebka
experiment says f'=f(1+gh/c^2)" but by means of elaborate camouflage
(involving gravitational time dilation and a spurious "frequency" that
has replaced the light's genuine frequency) he deprives you of any
rational context. Less intelligent Einsteinians are unable to deal
with the intricate camouflage and just blatantly lie on approaching
the triad:
STEPHEN HAWKING: Newton's emission theory of light says gravity does
affect the speed of light but Einstein's relativity says it doesn't:
http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-Stephen-Hawking/dp/0553380168
Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 6:
"Under the theory that light is made up of waves, it was not clear how
it would respond to gravity. But if light is composed of particles,
one might expect them to be affected by gravity in the same way that
cannonballs, rockets, and planets are.....In fact, it is not really
consistent to treat light like cannonballs in Newton's theory of
gravity because the speed of light is fixed. (A cannonball fired
upward from the earth will be slowed down by gravity and will
eventually stop and fall back; a photon, however, must continue upward
at a constant speed...)"
http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=64&Itemid=66
Stephen Hawking: "Interestingly enough, Laplace himself wrote a paper
in 1799 on how some stars could have a gravitational field so strong
that light could not escape, but would be dragged back onto the star.
He even calculated that a star of the same density as the Sun, but two
hundred and fifty times the size, would have this property. But
although Laplace may not have realised it, the same idea had been put
forward 16 years earlier by a Cambridge man, John Mitchell, in a paper
in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Both Mitchell
and Laplace thought of light as consisting of particles, rather like
cannon balls, that could be slowed down by gravity, and made to fall
back on the star. But a famous experiment, carried out by two
Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed that light always
travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six thousand miles a
second, no matter where it came from. How then could gravity slow down
light, and make it fall back."
LEE SMOLIN: Newton's emission theory of light says gravity doesn't
affect the speed of light but Einstein's relativity says it does:
http://streamer.perimeterinstitute.ca/mediasite/viewer/NoPopupRedirector.aspx?peid=5f32739a-624d-4ec8-9ecc-4d44d3d16fe9
Lee Smolin: "Newton's theory predicts that light goes in straight
lines and therefore if the star passes behind the sun, we can't see
it. Einstein's theory predicts that light is bent...."
STEVE CARLIP: Einstein's relativity says gravity both affects and does
not affect the speed of light:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html
Steve Carlip: "Einstein went on to discover a more general theory of
relativity which explained gravity in terms of curved spacetime, and
he talked about the speed of light changing in this new theory. In the
1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote:
". . . according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the
constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of
the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity
[. . .] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of
light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light
varies with position." Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector
quantity: speed with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not
clear that he meant the speed will change, but the reference to
special relativity suggests that he did mean so. THIS INTERPRETATION
IS PERFECTLY VALID AND MAKES GOOD PHYSICAL SENSE, BUT A MORE MODERN
INTERPRETATION IS THAT THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS CONSTANT in general
relativity."
Pentcho Valev wrote:
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
http://student.fizika.org/~jsisko/Knjige/Klasicna%20Mehanika/David%20Morin/CH13.PDF
p. 3: "The receiver and this next pulse then travel toward each other
at relative speed c+v (as measured by someone in S)."
What is the relative speed of the receiver and "this next pulse" as
measured by the receiver? c? c+v? c+2v? There is "triplethink" in
Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world sometimes. David Morin sincerely
believes that the receiver measures the relative speed to be c - this
is compatible with Einstein's 1905 false light postulate. Also, David
Morin sincerely believes that the receiver measures the relative speed
to be c+v - this follows from the (correct) analogy between photons
and cannonballs and is compatible with Einstein's explicit position in
the period 1907-1915. Finally, David Morin sincerely believes that the
receiver measures the relative speed to be c+2v - this is compatible
with the final version of Einstein's general relativity.
http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17.html#seventeen
George Orwell: "Doublethink means the power of holding two
contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both
of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories
must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with
reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself
that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it
would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to
be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and
hence of guilt. Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since
the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while
retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To
tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any
fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary
again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed,
to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take
account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably
necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to
exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is
tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this
knowledge ; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead
of the truth. (...) It need hardly be said that the subtlest
practitioners of doublethink are those who invented doublethink and
know that it is a vast system of mental cheating. In our society,
those who have the best knowledge of what is happening are also those
who are furthest from seeing the world as it is. In general, the
greater the understanding, the greater the delusion ; the more
intelligent, the less sane."
Pentcho Valev wrote:
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
http://ibphysicsstuff.wikidot.com/doppler-effect
"In the case of the moving observer the wavelength of the sound does
not change, but the frequency as measured by the observer does change.
This happens because the observer encounters a wavefront more
frequently."
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)."
The first picture in which the wavelength does not change is so
obviously true and the analogy between the two pictures is so
obviously straightforward that John Norton's behaviour can only be
characterized as doublethink. Sooner or later the era of Postscientism
will come to an end and people will realize that the wavelength would
not change just because an observer has decided to hurry towards the
source of light and Divine Albert has said the speed of light should
remain constant.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com