Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
NO HOPE FOR SPECIAL RELATIVITY
12 views
Skip to first unread message
Pentcho Valev
Jun 8, 2013, 2:10:49 PM6/8/13
to
http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/roger/PHYS10302/lecture18.pdf
Roger Barlow, Professor of Particle Physics: "The Doppler effect - changes in frequencies when sources or observers are in motion - is familiar to anyone who has stood at the roadside and watched (and listened) to the cars go by. It applies to all types of wave, not just sound. (...) Moving Observer. Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer is moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/lambda waves pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/lambda. So f'=(c+v)/lambda."
If "in time t, ct/lambda waves pass a fixed point", and if "a moving point adds another vt/lambda", then the speed of the light waves relative to the moving observer is:
c' = (lambda)(ct/lambda + vt/lambda)/t = c + v
in violation of special relativity. If v is small enough, the relativistic corrections are negligible and both c'=c+v and f'=c'/lambda become exact formulas.
Pentcho Valev
Roger Barlow, Professor of Particle Physics: "The Doppler effect - changes in frequencies when sources or observers are in motion - is familiar to anyone who has stood at the roadside and watched (and listened) to the cars go by. It applies to all types of wave, not just sound. (...) Moving Observer. Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer is moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/lambda waves pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/lambda. So f'=(c+v)/lambda."
If "in time t, ct/lambda waves pass a fixed point", and if "a moving point adds another vt/lambda", then the speed of the light waves relative to the moving observer is:
c' = (lambda)(ct/lambda + vt/lambda)/t = c + v
in violation of special relativity. If v is small enough, the relativistic corrections are negligible and both c'=c+v and f'=c'/lambda become exact formulas.
Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
Jun 9, 2013, 1:43:13 AM6/9/13
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)
That is:
L/t' = c' > L/t = c
where t is the time until pulse and receiver meet up when the receiver is stationary, t' is the shortened time when the receiver is moving, L is the wavelength, c is the speed of the light relative to the stationary receiver and c' is the speed of the light relative to the moving receiver.
No hope for special 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)
That is:
L/t' = c' > L/t = c
where t is the time until pulse and receiver meet up when the receiver is stationary, t' is the shortened time when the receiver is moving, L is the wavelength, c is the speed of the light relative to the stationary receiver and c' is the speed of the light relative to the moving receiver.
No hope for special relativity.
Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
Jun 9, 2013, 5:43:00 AM6/9/13
to
http://www.cmmp.ucl.ac.uk/~ahh/teaching/1B24n/lect19.pdf
Tony Harker, University College London: "The Doppler Effect: Moving sources and receivers. The phenomena which occur when a source of sound is in motion are well known. The example which is usually cited is the change in pitch of the engine of a moving vehicle as it approaches. In our treatment we shall not specify the type of wave motion involved, and our results will be applicable to sound or to light. (...) Now suppose that the observer is moving with a velocity Vo away from the source. (....) If the observer moves with a speed Vo away from the source (...), then in a time t the number of waves which reach the observer are those in a distance (c-Vo)t, so the number of waves observed is (c-Vo)t/lambda, giving an observed frequency f'=f(1-Vo/c) when the observer is moving away from the source at a speed Vo."
If "in a time t the number of waves which reach the observer are those in a distance (c-Vo)t", then the speed of the light waves relative to the observer is:
c' = ((c - Vo)t)/t = c - Vo
in violation of special relativity. The frequency measured by the moving observer is:
f' = f(1 - Vo/c) = c'/L = (c - Vo)/L
where L is the wavelength.
Tony Harker, University College London: "The Doppler Effect: Moving sources and receivers. The phenomena which occur when a source of sound is in motion are well known. The example which is usually cited is the change in pitch of the engine of a moving vehicle as it approaches. In our treatment we shall not specify the type of wave motion involved, and our results will be applicable to sound or to light. (...) Now suppose that the observer is moving with a velocity Vo away from the source. (....) If the observer moves with a speed Vo away from the source (...), then in a time t the number of waves which reach the observer are those in a distance (c-Vo)t, so the number of waves observed is (c-Vo)t/lambda, giving an observed frequency f'=f(1-Vo/c) when the observer is moving away from the source at a speed Vo."
If "in a time t the number of waves which reach the observer are those in a distance (c-Vo)t", then the speed of the light waves relative to the observer is:
c' = ((c - Vo)t)/t = c - Vo
in violation of special relativity. The frequency measured by the moving observer is:
f' = f(1 - Vo/c) = c'/L = (c - Vo)/L
where L is the wavelength.
Koobee Wublee
Jun 10, 2013, 3:11:35 AM6/10/13
to
On Jun 9, 8:07 am, Tom Roberts wrote:
>
> Pentcho Valev
> As I keep pointing out, Valev is both stupid and dishonest:
> he is unable to read the articles he quotes, and he
> deliberately omits portions of them that conflict with his
> own claims.
Of course, Tom has time to address Mr. Valev’s concerns because Mr.
Valev is an easier kill, and Tom loves to wrestle with children
because he always wins and thus imposes his authority over ones who
are far intellectually below him. <shrug>
This is evident whey Tom and other self-styled physicists avoid Koobee
Wublee with tails between their legs whenever Koobee Wublee shows up.
That is except for PD aka absolutely imbecile who has never discussed
the subject matter but bullshit, and that is why PD aka absolutely
imbecile ceased to be a professor of physics at the University of
Texas where PD aka absolutely imbecile still resides (in Texas).
<shrug>
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_thread/thread/55838215db63f7ba?hl=en#
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_thread/thread/580823870e4b07a6?hl=en#
<shrug>
>On Jun 8, 11:05 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/roger/PHYS10302/lecture18.pdf
> > Roger Barlow, Professor of Particle Physics: "The Doppler
> > effect - changes in frequencies when sources or observers
> > are in motion - is familiar to anyone who has stood at the
> > roadside and watched (and listened) to the cars go by.
> > [...]
> > http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/roger/PHYS10302/lecture18.pdf
> > Roger Barlow, Professor of Particle Physics: "The Doppler
> > effect - changes in frequencies when sources or observers
> > are in motion - is familiar to anyone who has stood at the
> > roadside and watched (and listened) to the cars go by.
>
> Pentcho Valev
> As I keep pointing out, Valev is both stupid and dishonest:
> he is unable to read the articles he quotes, and he
> deliberately omits portions of them that conflict with his
> own claims.
Of course, Tom has time to address Mr. Valev’s concerns because Mr.
Valev is an easier kill, and Tom loves to wrestle with children
because he always wins and thus imposes his authority over ones who
are far intellectually below him. <shrug>
This is evident whey Tom and other self-styled physicists avoid Koobee
Wublee with tails between their legs whenever Koobee Wublee shows up.
That is except for PD aka absolutely imbecile who has never discussed
the subject matter but bullshit, and that is why PD aka absolutely
imbecile ceased to be a professor of physics at the University of
Texas where PD aka absolutely imbecile still resides (in Texas).
<shrug>
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_thread/thread/55838215db63f7ba?hl=en#
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_thread/thread/580823870e4b07a6?hl=en#
<shrug>
Absolutely Vertical
Jun 10, 2013, 3:11:59 PM6/10/13
to
On 6/10/2013 2:11 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> Of course, Tom has time to address Mr. Valev’s concerns because Mr.
> Valev is an easier kill, and Tom loves to wrestle with children
> because he always wins and thus imposes his authority over ones who
> are far intellectually below him. <shrug>
>
> This is evident whey Tom and other self-styled physicists avoid Koobee
> Wublee with tails between their legs whenever Koobee Wublee shows up.
'no, me! me, me, me! i want the attention! give it to me! don't give it
> Of course, Tom has time to address Mr. Valev’s concerns because Mr.
> Valev is an easier kill, and Tom loves to wrestle with children
> because he always wins and thus imposes his authority over ones who
> are far intellectually below him. <shrug>
>
> This is evident whey Tom and other self-styled physicists avoid Koobee
> Wublee with tails between their legs whenever Koobee Wublee shows up.
to anybody else! i deserve it.' -- attention whorublee
Koobee Wublee
Jun 10, 2013, 7:08:05 PM6/10/13
to
argument was one of PD’s aka absolutely imbecile favorites. <shrug>
Absolutely Vertical
Jun 11, 2013, 9:02:54 AM6/11/13
to
and one that many people have made about you. that's because you're such
an ostentatiously egregious attention whorublee.
Pentcho Valev
Jun 11, 2013, 10:03:05 AM6/11/13
to
The gravitational redshift as measured in numerous experiments confirms Newton's emission theory of light according to which, in a gravitational field, the speed of light varies just like the speed of ordinary mechanical objects:
http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/redshift_white_dwarfs
Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. (...) The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..."
That is, the shift in frequency is caused by the shift in the speed of light in a gravitational field, as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light. It can be shown that, if the speed of light varies with the gravitational potential as predicted by the emission theory (c'=c(1+gh/c^2)), then, in gravitation-free space, it varies with the speed of the observer again in accordance with the emission theory (c'=c+v):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ2SVPahBzg
"The light is perceived to be falling in a gravitational field just like a mechanical object would. (...) The change in speed of light with change in height is dc/dh=g/c."
Integrating dc/dh=g/c gives:
c' = c(1 + gh/c^2)
Equivalently, in gravitation-free space where a rocket of length h accelerates with acceleration g, a light signal emitted by the front end will be perceived by an observer at the back end to have a speed:
c' = c(1 + gh/c^2) = c + v
where v is the speed the observer has at the moment of reception of the light relative to the emitter at the moment of emission. Clearly, the speed of light varies with both the gravitational potential and the speed of the observer, just as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light.
http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/redshift_white_dwarfs
Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. (...) The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..."
That is, the shift in frequency is caused by the shift in the speed of light in a gravitational field, as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light. It can be shown that, if the speed of light varies with the gravitational potential as predicted by the emission theory (c'=c(1+gh/c^2)), then, in gravitation-free space, it varies with the speed of the observer again in accordance with the emission theory (c'=c+v):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ2SVPahBzg
"The light is perceived to be falling in a gravitational field just like a mechanical object would. (...) The change in speed of light with change in height is dc/dh=g/c."
Integrating dc/dh=g/c gives:
c' = c(1 + gh/c^2)
Equivalently, in gravitation-free space where a rocket of length h accelerates with acceleration g, a light signal emitted by the front end will be perceived by an observer at the back end to have a speed:
c' = c(1 + gh/c^2) = c + v
where v is the speed the observer has at the moment of reception of the light relative to the emitter at the moment of emission. Clearly, the speed of light varies with both the gravitational potential and the speed of the observer, just as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light.
Koobee Wublee
Jun 11, 2013, 1:21:50 PM6/11/13
to
On Jun 11, 6:02 am, Absolutely Testicle wrote:
> On 6/10/2013 6:08 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > On Jun 10, 12:11 pm, Absolutely Testicle wrote:
> > > On 6/10/2013 2:11 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
> > > > Of course, Tom has time to address Mr. Valev’s concerns
> > > > because Mr. Valev is an easier kill, and Tom loves to
> > > > wrestle with children because he always wins and thus
> > > > imposes his authority over ones who are far
> > > > intellectually [and educationally] below him. <shrug>
> On 6/10/2013 6:08 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > On Jun 10, 12:11 pm, Absolutely Testicle wrote:
> > > On 6/10/2013 2:11 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
> > > > Of course, Tom has time to address Mr. Valev’s concerns
> > > > because Mr. Valev is an easier kill, and Tom loves to
> > > > wrestle with children because he always wins and thus
> > > > imposes his authority over ones who are far
>
> > > > This is evident whey Tom and other self-styled physicists
> > > > avoid Koobee Wublee with tails between their legs whenever
> > > > Koobee Wublee shows up.
>
> > > 'no, me! me, me, me! i want the attention! give it to me!
> > > don't give it to anybody else! i deserve it.' – attention
> > > > This is evident whey Tom and other self-styled physicists
> > > > avoid Koobee Wublee with tails between their legs whenever
> > > > Koobee Wublee shows up.
>
> > > 'no, me! me, me, me! i want the attention! give it to me!
> > > whorublee
>
> > Yup, that is PD aka absolutely imbecile all right. That
> > asinine argument was one of PD’s aka absolutely imbecile
> > favorites. <shrug>
>
> i don't believe that comment is an argument. it's a mocking observation,
> and one that many people have made about you. that's because you're such
> an ostentatiously egregious attention whorublee.
“'no, me! me, me, me! i want the attention! give it to me! don't give
>
> > Yup, that is PD aka absolutely imbecile all right. That
> > asinine argument was one of PD’s aka absolutely imbecile
> > favorites. <shrug>
>
> i don't believe that comment is an argument. it's a mocking observation,
> and one that many people have made about you. that's because you're such
> an ostentatiously egregious attention whorublee.
it to anybody else! i deserve it.'”
--- PD aka absolutely imbecile, 2013
If PD aka absolutely imbecile wants to call the above whining about
itself a mocking observation. That is fine with Koobee Wublee.
<shrug>
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Jun 11, 2013, 1:59:40 PM6/11/13
to
at least, you're not a bot, who can't do quadratic equations a la
relativity.
relativity.
Absolutely Vertical
Jun 11, 2013, 2:17:53 PM6/11/13
to
disorders?
i'm not surprised. kinda goes along with referring to yourself in third
person with capitalized pronouns. part of the megalomaniacal masking of
a shattered ego, crushing feelings of inadequacy, and deep inferiority
complex. as i'm sure you're very well aware....
but go ahead with the 2nd grade 'i know you are but what am i?' defense
mechanism. it may be the only one you've got.
Koobee Wublee
Jun 11, 2013, 2:25:36 PM6/11/13
to
On Jun 11, 11:17 am, Absolutely Testicle wrote:
> no, me! me, me, me! i want the attention! give it to me! don't
> give it to anybody else! i deserve it.
With more posts than anyone else, PD aka absolutely imbecile aka
> no, me! me, me, me! i want the attention! give it to me! don't
> give it to anybody else! i deserve it.
attention whore is doing it again to attract more attention. What a
troll! <shrug>
Get a clue. We are discussing physics not your attention seeking
rants. <shrug>
Absolutely Vertical
Jun 11, 2013, 2:49:06 PM6/11/13
to
defects? notice i'm not the one trying to elicit comments from anyone.
i'm talking directly to you. i believe you were the one that was
trolling for attention from tom roberts and other 'self-styled
physicists' who you claimed tremble with fear in your presence. and you
call this discussing physics??
lol.
you have it bad, attention whorublee.
Michael Moroney
Jun 14, 2013, 9:45:19 AM6/14/13
to
Absolutely Vertical <absolutel...@gmail.com> writes:
>On 6/11/2013 12:21 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>>
>> “'no, me! me, me, me! i want the attention! give it to me! don't give
>> it to anybody else! i deserve it.'”
>> --- PD aka absolutely imbecile, 2013
>>
>> If PD aka absolutely imbecile wants to call the above whining about
>> itself a mocking observation. That is fine with Koobee Wublee.
>> <shrug>
>>
>oh dear, so transference and denial are _also_ part of your mental
>disorders?
It's called "projection". This is when a person transfers his or her own
>On 6/11/2013 12:21 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>>
>> “'no, me! me, me, me! i want the attention! give it to me! don't give
>> it to anybody else! i deserve it.'”
>> --- PD aka absolutely imbecile, 2013
>>
>> If PD aka absolutely imbecile wants to call the above whining about
>> itself a mocking observation. That is fine with Koobee Wublee.
>> <shrug>
>>
>oh dear, so transference and denial are _also_ part of your mental
>disorders?
undesireable attributes (thoughts, feelings etc.) to others. It's quite
common.
Now that you know that, ever wonder about the personal hygiene of so many
in here who are so obsessed with "Einstein Dingleberries" ?
Absolutely Vertical
Jun 14, 2013, 10:00:41 AM6/14/13
to
On 6/14/2013 8:45 AM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> It's called "projection". This is when a person transfers his or her own
> undesireable attributes (thoughts, feelings etc.) to others. It's quite
> common.
>
> Now that you know that, ever wonder about the personal hygiene of so many
> in here who are so obsessed with "Einstein Dingleberries" ?
i've wondered whether, if given the chance to meet every one of the
> It's called "projection". This is when a person transfers his or her own
> undesireable attributes (thoughts, feelings etc.) to others. It's quite
> common.
>
> Now that you know that, ever wonder about the personal hygiene of so many
> in here who are so obsessed with "Einstein Dingleberries" ?
poster in this group in person, whether i would still want to talk with
them.
hanson
Jun 14, 2013, 2:11:44 PM6/14/13
to
ahahahaha... AAHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha... AHAHAHA...
>
In his profound worship of Albert's sphincter, filthy-assed "Michael
Moroney" <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> confessed
that he is obsessed with being one of "Einstein's Dingleberries"...
>
Thanks for the laughs, you splendid Dreidel.... ahahahAHAHAHA
>
In his profound worship of Albert's sphincter, filthy-assed "Michael
Moroney" <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> confessed
that he is obsessed with being one of "Einstein's Dingleberries"...
>
Thanks for the laughs, you splendid Dreidel.... ahahahAHAHAHA
Michael Moroney
Jun 14, 2013, 4:08:58 PM6/14/13
to
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> writes:
>In his profound worship of Albert's sphincter, filthy-assed "Michael
>Moroney" <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> confessed
>that he is obsessed with being one of "Einstein's Dingleberries"...
Thanks for proving my point, haha Hanson!
>In his profound worship of Albert's sphincter, filthy-assed "Michael
>Moroney" <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> confessed
>that he is obsessed with being one of "Einstein's Dingleberries"...
(I think I can smell Hanson from here!)
hanson
Jun 14, 2013, 7:49:43 PM6/14/13
to
ahahahaha... AAHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha... AHAHAHA...
>
First, in his profound worship of Albert's sphincter, filthy-assed
"Michael Moroney" (More-on brown eye) <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com>
proudly inists that he is obsessed with being one of
"Einstein's Dingleberries"...
>
>
First, in his profound worship of Albert's sphincter, filthy-assed
"Moroney" <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> confessed
that he is obsessed with being one of "Einstein's Dingleberries"...
>
Now, in his fanatical worship of Albert's sphincter, Ass-sniffer
that he is obsessed with being one of "Einstein's Dingleberries"...
>
"Michael Moroney" (More-on brown eye) <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com>
proudly inists that he is obsessed with being one of
"Einstein's Dingleberries"...
>
Pentcho Valev
Jun 16, 2013, 8:33:25 AM6/16/13
to
Einsteinians readily admit that, for waves other than light waves, the speed of the waves (relative to the observer) varies with the speed of the observer and this explains the Doppler frequency shift:
http://faculty.washington.edu/wilkes/116/slides/Physics116_L08-interference.pdf
"Sound waves have speed c, and f and L are related by c=Lf. For an observer moving relative to medium with speed u, apparent propagation speed c' will be different: c'=c±u. Wavelength cannot change - it's a constant length in the medium, and same length in moving coordinate system (motion does not change lengths). Observed frequency has to change, to match apparent speed and fixed wavelength: f'=c'/L."
Einsteinians use the same argument and deduce the same frequency shift (f'=c'/L=(c+v)/L) for light waves as well:
http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/roger/PHYS10302/lecture18.pdf
Roger Barlow, Professor of Particle Physics: "The Doppler effect - changes in frequencies when sources or observers are in motion - is familiar to anyone who has stood at the roadside and watched (and listened) to the cars go by. It applies to all types of wave, not just sound. (...) Moving Observer. Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer is moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/lambda waves pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/lambda. So f'=(c+v)/lambda."
The only difference between Doppler in sound (moving observer) and Doppler in light (moving observer) is that in the former case Einsteinians explicitly refer to the variable speed of the waves (relative to the moving observer) while in the case of light the variation is implicit. This guarantees the safety of special relativity because Einsteinians know: if something is implicit, then it is dangerous and should never become explicit, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Yet even Divine Albert's world is not eternal and sooner or later Einsteinians will be faced with an embarrassing question:
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://faculty.washington.edu/wilkes/116/slides/Physics116_L08-interference.pdf
"Sound waves have speed c, and f and L are related by c=Lf. For an observer moving relative to medium with speed u, apparent propagation speed c' will be different: c'=c±u. Wavelength cannot change - it's a constant length in the medium, and same length in moving coordinate system (motion does not change lengths). Observed frequency has to change, to match apparent speed and fixed wavelength: f'=c'/L."
Einsteinians use the same argument and deduce the same frequency shift (f'=c'/L=(c+v)/L) for light waves as well:
http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/roger/PHYS10302/lecture18.pdf
Roger Barlow, Professor of Particle Physics: "The Doppler effect - changes in frequencies when sources or observers are in motion - is familiar to anyone who has stood at the roadside and watched (and listened) to the cars go by. It applies to all types of wave, not just sound. (...) Moving Observer. Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer is moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/lambda waves pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/lambda. So f'=(c+v)/lambda."
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
Jun 17, 2013, 3:47:54 AM6/17/13
to
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/315/Waveshtml/node41.html
University of Texas: "Thus, the moving observer sees a wave possessing the same wavelength (...) but a different frequency (...) to that seen by the stationary observer. This phenomenon is known as the Doppler effect."
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."
Since "the moving observer sees a wave possessing the same wavelength (...) but a different frequency (...) to that seen by the stationary observer" and "the wave speed is simply increased by the observer speed, as we can see by jumping into the observer's frame of reference", that's the end of special relativity. Yet, for the sake of argument, let us try to save the Divine Theory by adding a life-belt:
"The moving observer sees a wave possessing the same wavelength" is WRONG for light waves. "The wave speed is simply increased by the observer speed, as we can see by jumping into the observer's frame of reference", but this is only valid for waves other than light waves. For light waves the frequency increase obeys the same formula (f'=f(1+v/c)=(c+v)/L) but the physical mechanism is entirely different. The speed of the light waves relative to the observer remains the same, c'=c, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity, so the increase in frequency can only be caused by a decrease in the wavelength: L'=c'/f'=c/f'=cL/(c+v).
How can the motion of the observer change the wavelength of the incoming light? Einsteiniana's zombies see no problem with that and believe that the motion of the observer gloriously changes the wavelength of any waves, not just light:
http://www.lp2i-poitiers.fr/doc/aps/albatros/uk/pages/doppleffet.html
"The observer moves closer to the source. The wave received has a shorter wavelength (higher frequency) than that emitted by the source. The observer moves away from the source. The wave received has a longer wavelength (lower frequency) than that emitted by the source."
As a rule, Einsteiniana's hypnotists obey crimestop when it comes to explaining how the motion of the observer changes the wavelength:
http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwell/george/o79n/chapter2.9.html
"Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."
Yet there is a curious exception: the hypnotist Tom Roberts did explain the inexplicable (so far no brother Einsteinian has confirmed Roberts' discovery):
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/Bo-q6Iu7Jhg/sCBYNj3IcoQJ
Tom Roberts: "In particular, light does not "have" a wavelength; wavelength is a MEASURED property of a light ray, not an intrinsic one -- it depends on HOW IT IS MEASURED."
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/Bo-q6Iu7Jhg/zHKzRalaOFgJ
Tom Roberts: "Differently moving inertial observers NECESSARILY have measuring instruments oriented differently in spacetime, and the different orientations of clocks and rulers are correlated such that for a light ray they always measure c."
http://www.einstein-website.de/images/WestPortalEinstein.jpg
"The Riverside Church in New York, west portal - upper line, second of right. In 1930, during a stay in New York, Albert Einstein and his wife visited the Riverside Church, too. During the detailed guided tour through the church Einstein was also shown the sculptures at the west portal. He was told that only one of the sculptures there represented a living person, and that was he himself. What Einstein is supposed to have thought in that moment when he heard that information and saw himself immortalized in stone? Contemporaries reported that he looked at the sculpture calmly and thoughtfully."
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-JFtmNnxJikY/T-ojZSodxvI/AAAAAAAAADs/m7fzx1VynGY/w940-h479/sciencelastsupper.jpg
Divine Albert and his apostles (Tom Roberts will replace Newton soon)
http://www.haverford.edu/physics/songs/divine.htm
DIVINE EINSTEIN. "No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein not Maxwell, Curie, or Bohr! His fame went glo-bell, he won the Nobel - He should have been given four! No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein, Professor with brains galore! No-one could outshine Professor Einstein! He gave us special relativity, That's always made him a hero to me! No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein, Professor in overdrive!"
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
University of Texas: "Thus, the moving observer sees a wave possessing the same wavelength (...) but a different frequency (...) to that seen by the stationary observer. This phenomenon is known as the Doppler effect."
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."
Since "the moving observer sees a wave possessing the same wavelength (...) but a different frequency (...) to that seen by the stationary observer" and "the wave speed is simply increased by the observer speed, as we can see by jumping into the observer's frame of reference", that's the end of special relativity. Yet, for the sake of argument, let us try to save the Divine Theory by adding a life-belt:
"The moving observer sees a wave possessing the same wavelength" is WRONG for light waves. "The wave speed is simply increased by the observer speed, as we can see by jumping into the observer's frame of reference", but this is only valid for waves other than light waves. For light waves the frequency increase obeys the same formula (f'=f(1+v/c)=(c+v)/L) but the physical mechanism is entirely different. The speed of the light waves relative to the observer remains the same, c'=c, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity, so the increase in frequency can only be caused by a decrease in the wavelength: L'=c'/f'=c/f'=cL/(c+v).
How can the motion of the observer change the wavelength of the incoming light? Einsteiniana's zombies see no problem with that and believe that the motion of the observer gloriously changes the wavelength of any waves, not just light:
http://www.lp2i-poitiers.fr/doc/aps/albatros/uk/pages/doppleffet.html
"The observer moves closer to the source. The wave received has a shorter wavelength (higher frequency) than that emitted by the source. The observer moves away from the source. The wave received has a longer wavelength (lower frequency) than that emitted by the source."
As a rule, Einsteiniana's hypnotists obey crimestop when it comes to explaining how the motion of the observer changes the wavelength:
http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwell/george/o79n/chapter2.9.html
"Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."
Yet there is a curious exception: the hypnotist Tom Roberts did explain the inexplicable (so far no brother Einsteinian has confirmed Roberts' discovery):
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/Bo-q6Iu7Jhg/sCBYNj3IcoQJ
Tom Roberts: "In particular, light does not "have" a wavelength; wavelength is a MEASURED property of a light ray, not an intrinsic one -- it depends on HOW IT IS MEASURED."
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/Bo-q6Iu7Jhg/zHKzRalaOFgJ
Tom Roberts: "Differently moving inertial observers NECESSARILY have measuring instruments oriented differently in spacetime, and the different orientations of clocks and rulers are correlated such that for a light ray they always measure c."
http://www.einstein-website.de/images/WestPortalEinstein.jpg
"The Riverside Church in New York, west portal - upper line, second of right. In 1930, during a stay in New York, Albert Einstein and his wife visited the Riverside Church, too. During the detailed guided tour through the church Einstein was also shown the sculptures at the west portal. He was told that only one of the sculptures there represented a living person, and that was he himself. What Einstein is supposed to have thought in that moment when he heard that information and saw himself immortalized in stone? Contemporaries reported that he looked at the sculpture calmly and thoughtfully."
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-JFtmNnxJikY/T-ojZSodxvI/AAAAAAAAADs/m7fzx1VynGY/w940-h479/sciencelastsupper.jpg
Divine Albert and his apostles (Tom Roberts will replace Newton soon)
http://www.haverford.edu/physics/songs/divine.htm
DIVINE EINSTEIN. "No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein not Maxwell, Curie, or Bohr! His fame went glo-bell, he won the Nobel - He should have been given four! No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein, Professor with brains galore! No-one could outshine Professor Einstein! He gave us special relativity, That's always made him a hero to me! No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein, Professor in overdrive!"
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
Jun 18, 2013, 10:51:43 AM6/18/13
to
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."
That is, in the moving-observer case, the frequency is proportional to c'=c+v, the speed of light relative to the moving observer:
f' = f(1+v/c) = (c+v)/lambda = c'/lambda
http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/roger/PHYS10302/lecture18.pdf
Roger Barlow, Professor of Particle Physics: "The Doppler effect - changes in frequencies when sources or observers are in motion - is familiar to anyone who has stood at the roadside and watched (and listened) to the cars go by. It applies to all types of wave, not just sound. (...) Moving Observer. Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer is moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/lambda waves pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/lambda. So f'=(c+v)/lambda."
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."
That is, in the moving-observer case, the frequency is proportional to c'=c+v, the speed of light relative to the moving observer:
f' = f(1+v/c) = (c+v)/lambda = c'/lambda
http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/roger/PHYS10302/lecture18.pdf
Roger Barlow, Professor of Particle Physics: "The Doppler effect - changes in frequencies when sources or observers are in motion - is familiar to anyone who has stood at the roadside and watched (and listened) to the cars go by. It applies to all types of wave, not just sound. (...) Moving Observer. Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer is moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/lambda waves pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/lambda. So f'=(c+v)/lambda."
0 new messages