Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

EINSTEIN'S 1905 POSTULATES IRRECONCILABLE AFTER ALL

92 views
Skip to first unread message

Pentcho Valev

unread,
Oct 19, 2012, 4:20:27 PM10/19/12
to
A stationary source sends a light pulse towards a stationary observer/receiver. Then the source starts moving towards the observer and sends another pulse. The two pulses are physically different, judging from the different frequency they will have at reception, and the difference is obviously created BEFORE reception. What does the difference consist in? Two answers are conceivable:

(A) The speed of the second pulse (relative to the observer) is higher than the speed of the first. Needless to say, this is fatal for relativity.

(B) The wavelength of the second pulse is shorter than the wavelength of the first. This is also fatal for relativity but for a different reason. If the wavelength of light varies with the speed of the source (as is the case with sound waves), then the principle of relativity is violated - the motion of the light source towards the observer is not equivalent to the motion of the observer towards the source. As the source changes its speed, various wavelengths travel between source and receiver. This does not happen when the receiver changes its speed.

Pentcho Valev

Big Dog

unread,
Oct 19, 2012, 5:14:59 PM10/19/12
to
On 10/19/2012 3:20 PM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> A stationary source sends a light pulse towards a stationary observer/receiver. Then the source starts
> moving towards the observer and sends another pulse. The two pulses are physically different, judging
> from the different frequency they will have at reception, and the difference is obviously created BEFORE
> reception.
>
> (B) The wavelength of the second pulse is shorter than the wavelength of the first. This is also fatal
> for relativity but for a different reason. If the wavelength of light varies with the speed of the source
> (as is the case with sound waves), then the principle of relativity is violated - the motion of the light
> source towards the observer is not equivalent to the motion of the observer towards the source. As the
> source changes its speed, various wavelengths travel between source and receiver. This does not happen
> when the receiver changes its speed.

Oh dear. Pentcho, what on earth makes you say that? It does happen
WHENEVER there is relative motion between the source and the receiver,
whether it is construed that the receiver is moving or that the source
is moving or both.

Dirk Van de moortel

unread,
Oct 19, 2012, 5:39:23 PM10/19/12
to
"Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:68d9f6cb-a09c-45f1...@googlegroups.com
> A stationary source sends a light pulse towards a stationary
> observer/receiver. Then the source starts moving towards the observer
> and sends another pulse. The two pulses are physically different,
> judging from the different frequency they will have at reception, and
> the difference is obviously created BEFORE reception. What does the
> difference consist in? Two answers are conceivable:
>
> (A) The speed of the second pulse (relative to the observer) is
> higher than the speed of the first. Needless to say, this is fatal
> for relativity.

It is measured to have the *same* speed.
Ignorance of this, all by itself, is fatal for Pentcho.

>
> (B) The wavelength of the second pulse is shorter than the wavelength
> of the first. This is also fatal for relativity but for a different
> reason. If the wavelength of light varies with the speed of the
> source (as is the case with sound waves), then the principle of
> relativity is violated - the motion of the light source towards the
> observer is not equivalent to the motion of the observer towards the
> source. As the source changes its speed, various wavelengths travel
> between source and receiver. This does not happen when the receiver
> changes its speed.

According to relativity is has the *same* effect.
Ignorance of this, all by itself, is fatal for Pentcho.

QUIZ: Ignorance of which differences listed below is *not* fatal
Pentcho?
- reading text vs. copying it to Usenet posts,
- light vs. sound,
- ideal circumstances vs. realistic circumstances,
- crackpots vs. people writing books fancied by crackpots,
- rates vs. values,
- a personal humorous musing vs. a common dogma,
- children's books vs. inspired essays,
- physicists vs. philosophers,
- coordinate time vs. proper time,
- invariance vs. constancy,
- special relativity vs. general relativity,
- teachers vs. hypnotists,
- laymen vs. zombies,
- a person being right vs. a theory being right,
- students vs. imbeciles,
- bad science vs. bad engineering,
- bad engineering vs. bad cost management,
- honing the foundations of a theory vs. fighting it,
- physics vs. linguistics,
- an article written in 1905 vs. a theory created in 1915,
- understanding a book vs. turning its pages,
- speed vs. relative (aka closing) speed,
- doing algebra vs. randomly writing down symbols,
- real life vs. a Usenet hobby group,
- receiving a detailed reply vs. being ignored,
- everyday concepts vs. scientific concepts in physics,
- the three things that smell like fish,
- inertial vs. non-inertial,
- speed vs. velocity,
- an article vs. a book,
- relativity vs. disguised ether addiction,
- algebra vs. analytic geometry,
- kneeling down vs. bending over,
- local vs. global,
- a sycophant in English vs. in French,
- a relation vs. an equation,
- massive vs. massless particles,
- a Mexican poncho vs. a Sears poncho,
- implication vs. equivalence,
- group velocity vs. phase velocity,
- science vs. religion

Dirk Vdm


Pete Weber

unread,
Oct 19, 2012, 6:11:22 PM10/19/12
to
On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 23:39:23 +0200, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

> "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:68d9f6cb-a09c-45f1...@googlegroups.com
>> A stationary source sends a light pulse towards a stationary
>> observer/receiver. Then the source starts moving towards the observer
>> and sends another pulse. The two pulses are physically different,
>> judging from the different frequency they will have at reception, and
>> the difference is obviously created BEFORE reception. What does the
>> difference consist in? Two answers are conceivable:
>>
>> (A) The speed of the second pulse (relative to the observer) is higher
>> than the speed of the first. Needless to say, this is fatal for
>> relativity.
>
> It is measured to have the *same* speed.


I wonder how one would measure that speed, derived from the wavelength?

Please describe your setup

Yosemite Samuelson

unread,
Oct 19, 2012, 7:25:55 PM10/19/12
to
We've had about a century of experiments and astronomical observations
specifically addressing the question of whether light exhibits
ballistic behavior.

Majorana 1918 and 1919 is a good start:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_Second_Postulate_of_the_Theory_of_Relativity

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Experimental_Demonstration_of_the_Constancy_of_Velocity_of_the_Light_emitted_by_a_Moving_Source

Yosemite Samuelson

Y

unread,
Oct 20, 2012, 2:26:30 AM10/20/12
to
> Pentcho Valev'

Doppler effect.

-y

Pete Weber

unread,
Oct 20, 2012, 10:16:18 AM10/20/12
to
none of them measures the speed of light, he concludes all that from
wavelengths, light fringes and interference paterns

Alen

unread,
Oct 20, 2012, 10:41:35 AM10/20/12
to
It is impossible for a single light pulse to have the
same velocity in relatively moving frames. They invented
Minkowski spacetime in an attempt to force it to
be possible, but it really doesn't work. It is just a fictional
fabrication. If the light postulate is true, it has to have some
totally different explanation.

Alen

Pentcho Valev

unread,
Oct 20, 2012, 11:19:16 AM10/20/12
to
As I showed in the original message, the assumption that the light source changes the wavelength by changing its speed, even though compatible with Einstein's 1905 light postulate, contradicts the principle of relativity (Tom Roberts agrees!). This assumption is by no means proved by diffraction grating:

http://www.anti-energija.com/The_properties_of_light.pdf
"The size of spectral line shifts, caused by moving light sources, as quoted in various scientific articles, clearly depends on the choice of the measuring instrument. The Fabry-Perot interferometer (FPI) responds differently to the changes of speed of light source as the spectrometer based on diffraction grating. It is possible that these two instruments are not equally sensitive to the frequency as to the wavelength of the light. Analysis of the structure and the construction of both instruments shows that FPI interferometer is sensitive only to the wavelength of light waves, while the spectrometer based on diffraction grating is sensitive to the wavelength and to the frequency of light. Moreover, in the case of different response of instruments to the changes of the speed of light source we have to ask ourselves if the moving light source affects the frequency differently from the wavelength of the light. In this case we have to allow the hypothesis that, in accordance with the equation c = f.λ, the moving light source affects the speed of light."

Pentcho Valev

kenseto

unread,
Oct 20, 2012, 11:25:22 AM10/20/12
to
On Saturday, October 20, 2012 10:41:35 AM UTC-4, Alen wrote:
> On Oct 20, 7:20 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > A stationary source sends a light pulse towards a stationary observer/receiver. Then the source starts moving towards the observer and sends another pulse. The two pulses are physically different, judging from the different frequency they will have at reception, and the difference is obviously created BEFORE reception. What does the difference consist in? Two answers are conceivable:
>
> >
>
> > (A) The speed of the second pulse (relative to the observer) is higher than the speed of the first. Needless to say, this is fatal for relativity.
>
> >
>
> > (B) The wavelength of the second pulse is shorter than the wavelength of the first. This is also fatal for relativity but for a different reason. If the wavelength of light varies with the speed of the source (as is the case with sound waves), then the principle of relativity is violated - the motion of the light source towards the observer is not equivalent to the motion of the observer towards the source. As the source changes its speed, various wavelengths travel between source and receiver. This does not happen when the receiver changes its speed.
>
> >
>
> > Pentcho Valev
>
>
>
> It is impossible for a single light pulse to have the
>
> same velocity in relatively moving frames.

That's why they redefined the meter to be 1/299,792,458 light-seconds.
This redefined meter guarantees the speed of light is c in all

Tom Roberts

unread,
Oct 20, 2012, 7:54:59 PM10/20/12
to
On 10/20/12 10/20/12 10:19 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> As I showed in the original message, the assumption that the light source
> changes the wavelength by changing its speed, even though compatible with
> Einstein's 1905 light postulate, contradicts the principle of relativity (Tom
> Roberts agrees!).

I do NOT agree. Your "demonstration" was flawed, because you do not understand
how relativity applies to this case. 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.

The very way you phrased that shows your complete and utter
lack of understanding.

The principle of relativity discusses the "laws of physics", not the particular
values of physical quantities. Indeed there are MANY physical quantities which
have different values in different inertial frames; the wavelength of a light
ray is merely one of them. The LAWS governing them are the same in all frames,
but their VALUES are not.

You remain clueless. If you would stop wasting your time posting nonsense to the
net, and spend some time STUDYING, you might learn something.


Tom Roberts

Don Stockbauer

unread,
Oct 20, 2012, 10:36:46 PM10/20/12
to
Penchant's postings are a good example of a potetial infinity.

Pentcho Valev

unread,
Oct 21, 2012, 3:15:59 AM10/21/12
to
Honest Roberts you have become too prudent again and it is not clear what you disagree with. Stephen Hawking teaches you that "the wavelength at which they [light waves] are emitted" changes when the source starts moving towards the observer. In other words, due to the source changing speed, DIFFERENT light pulses with different wavelengths leave the source:

http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-Stephen-Hawking/dp/0553380168
Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 3: Now imagine a source of light at a constant distance from us, such as a star, emitting waves of light at a constant wavelength. Obviously the wavelength of the waves we receive will be the same as the wavelength at which they are emitted (the gravitational field of the galaxy will not be large enough to have a significant effect). Suppose now that the source starts moving toward us. When the source emits the next wave crest it will be nearer to us, so the distance between wave crests will be smaller than when the star was stationary. This means that the wavelength of the waves we receive is shorter than when the star was stationary."

On the other hand, Honest Roberts, you teach us that, when the source is stationary and the observer changes his speed, the SAME pulses leave the source but the observer somehow ascribes different wavelengths to them:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/Y7KQjUSdum0/1rvrcjF4JlMJ
Honest Roberts: "But it is clear that in vacuum the light ray itself is unchanged as it propagates. Differently moving observers will measure different wavelengths for a given light ray, because their MEASURING INSTRUMENTS are oriented differently in spacetime, and such a measurement inherently PROJECTS the light ray onto the measuring instrument."

That is:

(1) Stephen Hawking: The source changes speed: DIFFERENT light pulses with different wavelengths leave the source.

(2) Tom Roberts: The observer changes speed: SAME light pulses leave the source but the observer ascribes different wavelengths to them.

Are (1) and (2) simultaneously true, Honest Roberts?

Pentcho Valev

Yosemite Samuelson

unread,
Oct 21, 2012, 4:21:31 AM10/21/12
to
On Saturday, October 20, 2012 9:16:22 AM UTC-5, Pete Weber wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 16:25:55 -0700, Yosemite Samuelson wrote:
> > On Oct 19, 5:11 pm, Pete Weber <p4g...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 23:39:23 +0200, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>
> >> > It is measured to have the *same* speed.
>
> >> I wonder how one would measure that speed, derived from the wavelength?
> >> Please describe your setup
>
> > We've had about a century of experiments and astronomical observations
> > specifically addressing the question of whether light exhibits ballistic
> > behavior.
>
> > Majorana 1918 and 1919 is a good start:
> > http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_Second_Postulate_of_the_Theory_of_Relativity
>
> > http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Experimental_Demonstration_of_the_Constancy_of_Velocity_of_the_Light_emitted_by_a_Moving_Source
>
>
> none of them measures the speed of light, he concludes all that from
> wavelengths, light fringes and interference paterns

Direct measurements of the speed of light are different from measurements of CHANGES in the speed of light.

Laboratory observation of ballistic effects from direct measurements of c are technically very difficult. Instead, Majorana measured CHANGES in c between light from moving and stationary sources, and between light from moving and stationary mirrors.

Majorana performed a FEASIBLE measurement of possible ballistic effects, measuring CHANGES in c. You insist on a technically INFEASIBLE measurement of possible ballistic effects, DIRECTLY measuring c.

Majorana detected no CHANGES in c.

Yosemite Samuelson

Alen

unread,
Oct 21, 2012, 6:05:40 AM10/21/12
to
> > Alen- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Yes, a good answer. I could stand corrected, provided
that solution doesn't create new problems of its own
(like Minkowski spacetime does) :)

Alen

Yosemite Samuelson

unread,
Oct 21, 2012, 7:02:51 AM10/21/12
to
On Sunday, October 21, 2012 3:21:31 AM UTC-5, Yosemite Samuelson wrote:

> Majorana detected no CHANGES in c.

By way of analogy, you don't need to measure the speed of the runners in a race to know the winner of a race. You only need to know who crossed the finish line first.

Majorana didn't need to measure the speed of light to determine that all the racers were reaching the finish line at the same time.

In the past century, dozens of experiments directed specifically towards this question have reached conclusions consistent with Majorana.

In addition, many experiments not directed specifically towards this question SIMPLY WOULD NOT WORK if light behaved otherwise. Femtosecond laser pulses would not hold their integrity over travel distances greater than a few centimeters. Hubble images of more than a few minutes exposure would be blurred because of differential aberration of light coming from different sources as the telescope travels along its orbit. And so on and so forth...

Yosemite Samuelson

Yosemite Samuelson

unread,
Oct 21, 2012, 7:19:45 AM10/21/12
to
On Sunday, October 21, 2012 5:05:40 AM UTC-5, Alen wrote:
> On Oct 21, 2:25 am, kenseto <seto...@att.net> wrote:

> > That's why they redefined the meter to be 1/299,792,458 light-seconds.
> > This redefined meter guarantees the speed of light is c in all
> > frames.
>
> Yes, a good answer. I could stand corrected, provided
> that solution doesn't create new problems of its own
> (like Minkowski spacetime does) :)

No, you have things backwards. The speed of light was observed EXPERIMENTALLY to be constant, and there where strong theoretical reasons for understanding why it must be so.

Given this to be the case, and given the high precision available in measurements of time, definition of the meter in terms of the speed of light offered the highest precision means of experimentally realizing the meter.

The re-definition of the meter was not to guarantee the constant speed of light. Rather, the OBSERVED AND THEORETICALLY JUSTIFIED constant speed of light guaranteed the highest possible accuracy in length measurements, provided that the definition of the meter was in terms of the speed of light.

Yosemite Samuelson.

Pete Weber

unread,
Oct 21, 2012, 7:21:53 AM10/21/12
to
On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 01:21:31 -0700, Yosemite Samuelson wrote:

> On Saturday, October 20, 2012 9:16:22 AM UTC-5, Pete Weber wrote:
>> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 16:25:55 -0700, Yosemite Samuelson wrote:
>> > On Oct 19, 5:11 pm, Pete Weber <p4g...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 23:39:23 +0200, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>>
>> >> > It is measured to have the *same* speed.
>>
>> >> I wonder how one would measure that speed, derived from the
>> >> wavelength?
>> >> Please describe your setup
>>
>> > We've had about a century of experiments and astronomical
>> > observations specifically addressing the question of whether light
>> > exhibits ballistic behavior.
>>
>> > Majorana 1918 and 1919 is a good start:
>> > http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/
On_the_Second_Postulate_of_the_Theory_of_Relativity
>>
>> > http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/
Experimental_Demonstration_of_the_Constancy_of_Velocity_of_the_Light_emitted_by_a_Moving_Source
>>
>>
>> none of them measures the speed of light, he concludes all that from
>> wavelengths, light fringes and interference paterns
>
> Direct measurements of the speed of light are different from
> measurements of CHANGES in the speed of light.

So? He _concludes_ those changes from those assumptions, there are no
measurements of speed of light in his setup

>
> Laboratory observation of ballistic effects from direct measurements of
> c are technically very difficult. Instead, Majorana measured CHANGES in
> c between light from moving and stationary sources, and between light
> from moving and stationary mirrors.

Wrong, he measure CHANGES in patterns, not CHANGES in c

Pete Weber

unread,
Oct 21, 2012, 7:57:49 AM10/21/12
to
On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 04:02:51 -0700, Yosemite Samuelson wrote:

> On Sunday, October 21, 2012 3:21:31 AM UTC-5, Yosemite Samuelson wrote:
>
>> Majorana detected no CHANGES in c.
>
> By way of analogy, you don't need to measure the speed of the runners in
> a race to know the winner of a race. You only need to know who crossed
> the finish line first.
>
> Majorana didn't need to measure the speed of light to determine that all
> the racers were reaching the finish line at the same time.


Right, if those waves were material waves, ie air or water

Light waves are considered to be diametrically different

[...]

> Yosemite Samuelson

jem

unread,
Oct 21, 2012, 8:32:02 AM10/21/12
to
And the Science orthodoxy isn't the only guilty party, Babble Boy.
The developers of chess failed to recognize the impossibility of
diagonal bishop moves, and invented rules that force diagonal moves to
be possible even though it's a fictional fabrication that really
doesn't work.

And now today's chess community is overrun with sneering, orthodox
players, who've never experienced real original thinking, and smugly
parrot the moves they learned by rote while ridiculing free-thinkers,
like yourself, who try to explain the need to engage in trial and
error thinking about everything in an attempt to identify precisely
what is wrong, and what a better alternative might be.

But don't worry, Babble Boy, eventually some free-thinker will work
out the bishop's true move, and get the last laugh. And who knows,
maybe you'll be the one who free-thinks the way to SR's true light
postulate.


Paul B. Andersen

unread,
Oct 21, 2012, 9:00:47 AM10/21/12
to
On 20.10.2012 16:41, Alen wrote:
> It is impossible for a single light pulse to have the
> same velocity in relatively moving frames.

Why is it impossible?


--
Paul

http://www.gethome.no/paulba/

Yosemite Samuelson

unread,
Oct 21, 2012, 9:10:08 AM10/21/12
to
No "pattern changes" attributable to changes in c have EVER been observed, whether in experiments specifically designed to detect those "pattern changes", or in observations dependent on constancy of the speed of light for their ability to be performed.

For example. Are you familiar with the aberration of light?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_of_light

As the Hubble Space Telescope rounds it orbit every 90 minutes, the apparent position of stars in its field shifts along an ellipse with a semi-major radius of five seconds of arc. Distant galaxies in the same field of view shift along the same-sized ellipse.

As the Hubble Space Telescope rounds its orbit every 90 minutes, it has to continually shift its orientation to compensate for the aberration of light, and the same shift works for every object in a single field of view.

This "pattern change" indicates that light from every object in HST's field of view travels to Earth at the same speed, despite widely differing Doppler shifts.

Do you have a problem with this conclusion based on "pattern changes"?

Yosemite Samuelson

Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

unread,
Oct 21, 2012, 9:19:08 AM10/21/12
to
"Paul B. Andersen" <som...@somewhere.no> wrote in message news:k60rm0$n44$1...@news.albasani.net...
==============================
Because 1+1 doesn’t equal 1.
Why are you an idiot?
-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

kenseto

unread,
Oct 21, 2012, 9:28:03 AM10/21/12
to
On Saturday, October 20, 2012 7:55:01 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 10/20/12 10/20/12 10:19 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> > As I showed in the original message, the assumption that the light source
>
> > changes the wavelength by changing its speed, even though compatible with
>
> > Einstein's 1905 light postulate, contradicts the principle of relativity (Tom
>
> > Roberts agrees!).
>
>
>
> I do NOT agree. Your "demonstration" was flawed, because you do not understand
>
> how relativity applies to this case. 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.
>
>
>
> The very way you phrased that shows your complete and utter
>
> lack of understanding.
>
>
>
> The principle of relativity discusses the "laws of physics", not the particular
>
> values of physical quantities. Indeed there are MANY physical quantities which
> have different values in different inertial frames; the wavelength of a light
> ray is merely one of them. The LAWS governing them are the same in all frames, but their VALUES are not.

This shows that you are uninformed. According to SR every
inertial observer measures his sodium source to have a
universal wavelength of 589 nm.

kenseto

unread,
Oct 21, 2012, 9:41:54 AM10/21/12
to
On Sunday, October 21, 2012 9:00:48 AM UTC-4, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> On 20.10.2012 16:41, Alen wrote:
>
> > It is impossible for a single light pulse to have the
>
> > same velocity in relatively moving frames.
>
>
>
> Why is it impossible?

Why is it possible?
If it is possible why do they have to redefine the meter to be
1/299,792,458 light-secoonds? This redefinetion of the meter
artificially guarantees the speed of light to be constant c.

Alen

unread,
Oct 21, 2012, 10:17:09 AM10/21/12
to
> postulate.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

What's all this nonsensical, babbling garbage about chess?
Ha, so who's the 'Babble Boy' now, eh, Babble Boy! :)

Alen

Alen

unread,
Oct 21, 2012, 10:20:24 AM10/21/12
to
On Oct 21, 10:19 pm, Yosemite Samuelson <yosemite.samuel...@gmail.com>
wrote:
We are not disputing the speed of light being constant.
The question is, how is it possible? How does it work?
What is the mechanism?

Alen

Pete Weber

unread,
Oct 21, 2012, 10:40:35 AM10/21/12
to
That one measure wavelength and interference changes, no i dont have any, i
think i said that

You seems to confuse material waves with light waves, which is wrong as
said

Tom Roberts

unread,
Oct 21, 2012, 10:52:18 AM10/21/12
to
On 10/20/12 10/20/12 9:41 AM, Alen wrote:
> It is impossible for a single light pulse to have the
> same velocity in relatively moving frames.

You mean: it is impossible FOR ALEN TO COMPREHEND how a single light pulse can
have the same speed in relatively moving frames.

(Note carefully my change from velocity to speed.)

This is a very different statement, but is really the strongest you can make.

Light is OBSERVED to have the same speed (in vacuum) in relatively moving
frames. Observations trump your lack of understanding, and it is incumbent on
YOU to learn about it. Fortunately, today you do not need the genius of an
Einstein to understand this, you just need to STUDY. But wasting your time
posting nonsense to the 'net won't teach you anything.


Tom Roberts

Alen

unread,
Oct 21, 2012, 11:07:54 AM10/21/12
to
Of course I don't deny the evidence. I meant that it
is impossible in any straightforward way. In other words,
it requires explanation as to how it works, as to what
the mechanism is. Minkowski spacetime doesn't
work, because it can't properly represent a dynamic,
as distinct from a static, spacetime, so it is not
the correct answer.

Alen

Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

unread,
Oct 21, 2012, 11:10:14 AM10/21/12
to
"Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:L8ednVOYGqO...@giganews.com...

Light is OBSERVED to have the same speed (in vacuum) in relatively moving
frames.
 
==============================================
Light is observe to be Doppler shifted in relatively moving frames
and Doppler’s equation is f’ = f * (c+v)/c, so light’s speed is directly
proportional to observed frequency.
You are an insane fucking LIAR, Roberts.

Paul B. Andersen

unread,
Oct 21, 2012, 4:21:31 PM10/21/12
to
On 20.10.2012 16:41, Alen wrote:
> It is impossible for a single light pulse to have the
> same velocity in relatively moving frames.

On 21.10.2012 16:20, Alen wrote:
> We are not disputing the speed of light being constant.
> The question is, how is it possible? How does it work?
> What is the mechanism?

Quite.
Nature behaves in impossible ways. :-)

On 21.10.2012 17:07, Alen wrote:
> On Oct 22, 1:52 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> Light is OBSERVED to have the same speed (in vacuum) in relatively moving
>> frames. Observations trump your lack of understanding, and it is incumbent on
>> YOU to learn about it. Fortunately, today you do not need the genius of an
>> Einstein to understand this, you just need to STUDY. But wasting your time
>> posting nonsense to the 'net won't teach you anything.
>>
>> Tom Roberts
>
> Of course I don't deny the evidence. I meant that it
> is impossible in any straightforward way. In other words,
> it requires explanation as to how it works, as to what
> the mechanism is.

The mechanism of Nature is that "it's turtles all the way down".
(Look it up if you didn't get it.)

Point being that the clockwork universe is an idea of the past.
Asking for the 'mechanism' that make Nature work as it does is futile.
(And quite naive.)

> Minkowski spacetime doesn't
> work, because it can't properly represent a dynamic,
> as distinct from a static, spacetime, so it is not
> the correct answer.

A strange statement.
Minkowski spacetime works perfectly well when it comes
to give a geometric illustration of SR.
SR is a mathematical model of (a tiny aspect of) Nature,
and geometry is a well suited way of describing this model.
And it does give a geometric explanation for why the speed
of light is invariant.

But don't confuse a mathematical model of Nature with Nature itself.
You seem to think that Nature "requires explanation as to how it works".
It doesn't.
Nature works as it does, and the best we can hope for is to
make mathematical models (aka theories of physics) that are
able to correctly predict what will happen for experiments
which are within the scope of the model (theory).

BTW, what do you mean by
"a dynamic, as distinct from a static, spacetime" ?
Minkowski spacetime is flat spacetime.
SR is only valid in flat spacetime, so it is only
valid locally, when the area of spacetime (short time,
small distances) is small enough to be considered flat.
(Like the water surface in your bathtub can be considered
flat, even if it is really is a tiny part of a sphere.)

Why would you want a flat spacetime to be dynamic?



--
Paul

http://www.gethome.no/paulba/

Yosemite Samuelson

unread,
Oct 21, 2012, 5:25:04 PM10/21/12
to
On Sunday, October 21, 2012 10:07:54 AM UTC-5, Alen wrote:
> On Oct 22, 1:52 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > On 10/20/12 10/20/12   9:41 AM, Alen wrote:
>
> > > It is impossible for a single light pulse to have the
> > > same velocity in relatively moving frames.
>
> > You mean: it is impossible FOR ALEN TO COMPREHEND how a single light pulse can
> > have the same speed in relatively moving frames.
>
> >         (Note carefully my change from velocity to speed.)
>
> > This is a very different statement, but is really the strongest you can make.
>
> > Light is OBSERVED to have the same speed (in vacuum) in relatively moving
> > frames. Observations trump your lack of understanding, and it is incumbent on
> > YOU to learn about it. Fortunately, today you do not need the genius of an
> > Einstein to understand this, you just need to STUDY. But wasting your time
> > posting nonsense to the 'net won't teach you anything.
>
> Of course I don't deny the evidence. I meant that it
> is impossible in any straightforward way.

On the contrary, the geometrical explanation for this phenomenon is EXTREMELY STRAIGHTFORWARD, almost trivial.

You merely have to accept that the true shape of spacetime is decidedly non-Euclidean at high speeds, just as you have to accept that the true shape of the Earth's surface is rounded over large distances.

Yes, spacetime seems Euclidean at low speeds, just as the Earth's surface seems flat over short distances. But this doesn't prove anything.

Yosemite Samuelson

Yosemite Samuelson

unread,
Oct 21, 2012, 5:27:25 PM10/21/12
to
The confusion is entirely on your part. Sorry.

Yosemite Samuelson

Tom Roberts

unread,
Oct 21, 2012, 7:12:11 PM10/21/12
to
On 10/21/12 10/21/12 9:20 AM, Alen wrote:
> We are not disputing the speed of light being constant.
> The question is, how is it possible? How does it work?
> What is the mechanism?

Note it is the MEASURED speed of light (in vacuum) that is always c.

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.

Draw Cartesian coordinates on a plane and label them x and t.
Now draw worldlines representing the trajectory of an observer
at rest in those coordinates: it is a line parallel to the t
axis [x(t)=x0, with x0 constant]. Now draw the worldline of an
inertial observer moving relative to these coordinates
[x(t)=at+b, a and b constant] -- necessarily it is a line that
is parallel to neither axis. The orientation in spacetime of
each one's clock is parallel to its worldline, so these
orientations are MANIFESTLY different. Each one's ruler's
orientation is orthogonal to the corresponding clock, so
these are MANIFESTLY different, too.


Tom Roberts

jem

unread,
Oct 22, 2012, 8:45:55 AM10/22/12
to
If you had only an ounce of comprehension, Babble Boy, that
straightforward chess analogy would've helped you recognize the naive
ignorance permeating the pair of posts you produced 2 days ago. You
evidently don't have that ounce, but others do, so the analogy still
serves as well-deserved ridicule.

> Ha, so who's the 'Babble Boy' now, eh, Babble Boy! :)

Not for you to say, Babble Boy. The ignorant (e.g., you) lack the
means to distinguish between nonsense and fact.










Alen

unread,
Oct 22, 2012, 10:25:45 AM10/22/12
to
> means to distinguish between nonsense and fact.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

All this smug, self-satisfied, overconfidence from a
believer in an impossible science-fiction spacetime.
Do you think someone could have a conversation with
you in your future before you get there, or know anything
about it? Because that, in fact, is the nonsense you
really believe in. But perhaps you don't even realise
that you do believe in such nonsense.

If I don't have an ounce of comprehension, then you don't
have any at all, you futile, sneering babbler.

Alen

Alen

unread,
Oct 22, 2012, 10:34:19 AM10/22/12
to
If you looked at the link in my post "The Failure of Minkowski
Spacetime (This Time Illustrated)", you would see
the defects of this solution illustrated on a spacetime
diagram (no reading of other text necessary). This means
that there has to be some other solution to the spacetime
implementation of the light postulate and the transformation
equations.

Alen

Big Dog

unread,
Oct 22, 2012, 10:46:37 AM10/22/12
to
On 10/20/2012 9:41 AM, Alen wrote:

>
> It is impossible for a single light pulse to have the
> same velocity in relatively moving frames.

Why is it IMPOSSIBLE?

You've claimed this before but cannot seem to show why.

> They invented
> Minkowski spacetime in an attempt to force it to
> be possible, but it really doesn't work. It is just a fictional
> fabrication. If the light postulate is true, it has to have some
> totally different explanation.
>
> Alen
>

Big Dog

unread,
Oct 22, 2012, 11:26:57 AM10/22/12
to
On 10/22/2012 9:25 AM, Alen wrote:

>
> All this smug, self-satisfied, overconfidence from a
> believer in an impossible science-fiction spacetime.


What's impossible about it?

jem

unread,
Oct 23, 2012, 8:04:19 AM10/23/12
to
Why is it, Babble Boy, that you've spent YEARS babbling about a
subject you know less than nothing about? Are you lonesome? Is
opening yourself up to ridicule the only way you've found to avoid
being ignored?

Henry Wilson

unread,
Oct 24, 2012, 1:12:02 PM10/24/12
to
Alen, have you noticed how the relativist ratpack immediately springs into action whenever somebody demonstrates how Einstein is wrong? Their tactics are well rehearsed, repetitive and invariably devoid of worthwhile scientific content. The Pigdog/Cardinale/jem/van de morbid types rely entirely on ridicule and insult in an attempt to subdue a person. The Andersen/Sambo group persistently repeat the same monotonous fantasy that 'many experiments' have shown OWLS to be independent of source speed. In fact none of those experiments is worth the paper it is written on. For instanceSambo just raked up a primitive 1919 experiment in which the author himself admitted that it didn't support relativity. It certainly didn't refute BaTh either. HE SENT THE LIGHT BEAM THROUGH A GLASS LENS BEFORE IT ENTERED THE INTERFEROMETER. HAHAHAHHAHHHAHA!
Roberts is a sad case although he at least tries. His sole role is to confuse the enemy by mumbling 4D jargon, which he believes will nullify the many 3D paradoxes and contradictions that make Einstein's rehashed LET theory a complete joke.
So stick with it Alen, the truth will soon emerge. The Einsten hoax will go down in history as the greatest joke ever played on the world's scientific community.
> Alen
0 new messages