VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT (HOW IS RELATIVITY POSSIBLE?)

[Pentcho Valev]

If an observer on top of a tower emits light, an observer on the
ground measures the speed of the light to be increased:

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/hsr1000/lecturenotes12_02.pdf
Harvey Reall, University of Cambridge: "...light falls in the
gravitational field in exactly the same way as a massive test
particle."

http://membres.multimania.fr/juvastro/calculs/einstein.pdf
"Le principe d'équivalence, un des fondements de base de la relativité
générale prédit que dans un champ gravitationnel, la lumière tombe
comme tout corps matériel selon l'acceleration de la pesanteur."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNWngpw2vr0
Brian Cox: "Light falls at the same rate in a gravitational field as
everything else."

http://www.wfu.edu/~brehme/space.htm
Robert W. Brehme: "Light falls in a gravitational field just as do
material objects."

The fact that "light falls in a gravitational field just as do
material objects" has an important implication. Let us consider two
initially stationary observers, A and B, at some distance apart in an
inertial system. A emits a flash of light towards B just as B starts
accelerating towards A so that, when B and the flash meet, B has a
speed v relative to the original inertial system. If "light falls in a
gravitational field just as do material objects", then B measures the
speed of the flash to be c'=c+v. In other words, the speed of light
(relative to the observer) varies with the speed of the observer:

http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php
"vO is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This
velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the
velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + vO. (...) The motion
of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in
frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in
a given time."

http://physics.ucsd.edu/students/courses/summer2011/session1/physics2c/Waves.pdf
"Doppler Shift: Moving Observer: Shift in frequency only, wavelength
does not change"

http://www.expo-db.be/ExposPrecedentes/Expo/Ondes/fichiers%20son/Effet%20Doppler.pdf
"La variation de la fréquence observée lorsqu'il y a mouvement relatif
entre la source et l'observateur est appelée effet Doppler. (...) 6.
Source immobile - Observateur en mouvement: La distance entre les
crêtes, la longueur d'onde lambda ne change pas. Mais la vitesse des
crêtes par rapport à l'observateur change !"

http://www.radartutorial.eu/11.coherent/co06.fr.html
"L'effet Doppler est le décalage de fréquence d'une onde acoustique ou
électromagnétique entre la mesure à l'émission et la mesure à la
réception lorsque la distance entre l'émetteur et le récepteur varie
au cours du temps. (...) Pour comprendre ce phénomène, il s'agit de
penser à une onde à une fréquence donnée qui est émise vers un
observateur en mouvement, ou vis-versa. LA LONGUEUR D'ONDE DU SIGNAL
EST CONSTANTE mais si l'observateur se rapproche de la source, il se
déplace vers les fronts d'ondes successifs et perçoit donc plus
d'ondes par seconde que s'il était resté stationnaire, donc une
augmentation de la fréquence. De la même manière, s'il s'éloigne de la
source, les fronts d'onde l'atteindront avec un retard qui dépend de
sa vitesse d'éloignement, donc une diminution de la fréquence."

http://www.phys.uconn.edu/~gibson/Notes/Section6_3/Sec6_3.htm
Professor George N. Gibson, University of Connecticut: "However, if
either the source or the observer is moving, things change. This is
called the Doppler effect. (...) To understand the moving observer,
imagine you are in a motorboat on the ocean. If you are not moving,
the boat will bob up and down with a certain frequency determined by
the ocean waves coming in. However, imagine that you are moving into
the waves fairly quickly. You will find that you bob up and down more
rapidly, because you hit the crests of the waves sooner than if you
were not moving. So, the frequency of the waves appears to be higher
to you than if you were not moving. Notice, THE WAVES THEMSELVES HAVE
NOT CHANGED, only your experience of them. Nevertheless, you would say
that the frequency has increased. Now imagine that you are returning
to shore, and so you are traveling in the same direction as the waves.
In this case, the waves may still overtake you, but AT A MUCH SLOWER
RATE - you will bob up and down more slowly. In fact, if you travel
with exactly the same speed as the waves, you will not bob up and down
at all. The same thing is true for sound waves, or ANY OTHER
WAVES."

Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com

[Nic]

> http://physics.ucsd.edu/students/courses/summer2011/session1/physics2...

> "Doppler Shift: Moving Observer: Shift in frequency only, wavelength
> does not change"
>

> http://www.expo-db.be/ExposPrecedentes/Expo/Ondes/fichiers%20son/Effe...

unless each particle has its own weight and gravitational field all on
its ownsome that affects its velocity. Could a gravitational pull of a
minute fraction of any field be called a contingency field affecting
the rate of velocity, the speed of light?

[G=EMC^2]

Thinking light can change speed takes you down a black tunnel . TreBert

[Zinnic]

> http://physics.ucsd.edu/students/courses/summer2011/session1/physics2...

> "Doppler Shift: Moving Observer: Shift in frequency only, wavelength
> does not change"
>

> http://www.expo-db.be/ExposPrecedentes/Expo/Ondes/fichiers%20son/Effe...

Stop repetitively posting the obvious.
How about making yourself useful and inform us which object is moving
when two objects approach or separate from each other.
Explain how movement of a recorder (observer) can change the intrinsic
properties of a waveform emitted from a remote source.
The media for transmission of water disturbances (ripples) and air
compressions (sound waves) are water and air respectively. Explain
why electromagnetic disturbances (e.g. light waves) require a
transmission medium other than pervasive electromagnetism.
Zinnic

[Nic]

I only imagine speed as a length and somewhere it disappears out of my
visual range, hehe. like money at this time of year, we see it
everywhere but no one can measure where it went or ever goes !

[Tom Roberts]

On 12/21/11 12/21/11 1:51 PM, Zinnic wrote:
> On Dec 21, 2:58 am, Pentcho Valev<pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> [...]

> Stop repetitively posting the obvious.

The problem is that what he posts is not "obvious", it is WRONG. And no matter
how many people tell him this, he keeps posting his mistakes and errors.


Tom Roberts

[xxein]

> http://physics.ucsd.edu/students/courses/summer2011/session1/physics2...

> "Doppler Shift: Moving Observer: Shift in frequency only, wavelength
> does not change"
>

> http://www.expo-db.be/ExposPrecedentes/Expo/Ondes/fichiers%20son/Effe...

xxein: Nice try. But in it's total physical affect, it is a little
more complicated than that.

First of all, there is no known way that you can measure light as OWLS
(although I have a method of determining OWLS). Neither here nor
there because it only supports the notion of the 2nd postulate. But
in a different convoluted way.

Pound-Rebka. Been there, done that. It is not a proof of anything
but a measurement by observers. Based upon what? Two differently
placed clocks in the same gravity wrt an outward line d. They have
different timerates due to gravitational time dilation. I've done the
calculations. They each measure a different frequency of the light.
What else would you expect? That's energy measured by a clock. But
there is more than that. (Ask me).

You are the clock where you are. If light speed was a constant, you
would measure more frequency than in the tower partly because of your
clockspeed difference (your clock is slower).

But let's analyse this. Why is your clock slower? What is the
physical (rather than theoretical) reason for this? Just because we
measure it that way? Didn't Lorentz show you that measurement was
deceiving? That was a part of the beginning of relativity theory
picked up by Einstein.

But Einstein bastardized Lorentz with his math in his concept. We
call that physics if it works to some degree. But it is still not the
real physic.

Your original statement is wrongly based. The observer on the ground
measures a higher frequency because of a slower clock timerate.

And we are not even defining the speed of light in gravity. Black
holes. Gravity. Light coming in and not out. Do you know how think
about that?

Go play with your dog. It'll make you feel better than reading this.

[xxein]

xxein: Et tu, Brute.

[Pentcho Valev]

The fact that the speed of light (relative to the observer/receiver)
varies with the speed of the observer/receiver is indispensable for
deriving the gravitational redshift so Einsteinians are forced to use
it, implicitly of course. The boldest among them believe that the
camouflage ("protective belt" in Imre Lakatos' terminology) is so
perfect that an explicit hint would do no harm:

http://student.fizika.org/~jsisko/Knjige/Klasicna%20Mehanika/David%20Morin/CH13.PDF
David Morin p. 3: "However, the light takes a finite time to reach the
receiver, and by then the receiver will be moving. We therefore cannot
ignore the motion of the rocket when dealing with the receiver. The
time it takes the light to reach the receiver is h/c, at which point
the receiver has a speed of v=g(h/c).(...) The receiver and this next
pulse then travel toward each other at relative speed c+v..."

http://bertie.ccsu.edu/naturesci/PhilSci/Lakatos.html
"Lakatos distinguished between two parts of a scientific theory: its
"hard core" which contains its basic assumptions (or axioms, when set
out formally and explicitly), and its "protective belt", a surrounding
defensive set of "ad hoc" (produced for the occasion) hypotheses.
(...) In Lakatos' model, we have to explicitly take into account the
"ad hoc hypotheses" which serve as the protective belt. The protective
belt serves to deflect "refuting" propositions from the core
assumptions..."

Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com

[Pentcho Valev]

The motion of the observer clearly cannot alter the wavelength of the
light wave (and of any other wave). Accordingly, since the frequency
does vary with the speed of the observer, the formula:

(frequency) = (speed of the wave)/(wavelength)

tells us that the speed of ANY wave (relative to the observer) varies
with the speed of the observer.

Not so, say practitioners of doublethink in Einsteiniana. Forget the
wavelength, it does not exist per se, think of the "observer's
wavelength-measuring apparatus" which always measures the correct
wavelength so that believers can safely sing "Divine Einstein" and
"Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity":

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)."

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/25239c921a61d6a0
Tom Roberts: "NOTHING that is intrinsic to the light wave "changes".
But then, wavelength is NOT an intrinsic property of a light wave.
What does change with the observer's velocity is the RELATIONSHIP
between the observer's wavelength-measuring apparatus and the light
wave, and this causes differently moving observers to MEASURE
different wavelengths for the same light wave."

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17
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
pva...@yahoo.com

[Neo]

On Dec 22, 7:42 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The motion of the observer clearly cannot alter the wavelength of the
> light wave (and of any other wave). Accordingly, since the frequency
> does vary with the speed of the observer, the formula:
>

Dear child, light wave or other attributes are not objective...
everything is mathematical equations, formulas and calculations in the
program of the Matrix where we live and the spatial background uses
Lorentz Transformation for ease and efficiency, etc.. Try to
understand this.

> (frequency) = (speed of the wave)/(wavelength)
>
> tells us that the speed of ANY wave (relative to the observer) varies
> with the speed of the observer.
>
> Not so, say practitioners of doublethink in Einsteiniana. Forget the
> wavelength, it does not exist per se, think of the "observer's
> wavelength-measuring apparatus" which always measures the correct
> wavelength so that believers can safely sing "Divine Einstein" and
> "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity":
>

> http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/big_bang/ind...

> 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)."
>

> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/25239c921a6...

[G=EMC^2]

Photons do not bounce. When they measure light going slower than c
best they check the greater distance going from A to B It takes
photons 200,000 years from Sun's core to break out of its surface,and
going slower is not used for the answer Get the picture TreBert

[Zinnic]

On Dec 21, 5:50 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

The obvious I refer to is the repetitive and irelevent explanation of
the apparent change in frequency/wavelengh for
a moving recorder/ observer.

[PD]

On 12/22/2011 5:42 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> The motion of the observer clearly cannot alter the wavelength of the
> light wave (and of any other wave). Accordingly, since the frequency
> does vary with the speed of the observer, the formula:
>
> (frequency) = (speed of the wave)/(wavelength)
>
> tells us that the speed of ANY wave (relative to the observer) varies
> with the speed of the observer.
>

That's not clear at all, Pentcho. The motion of the observer clearly
alters the speed, the momentum, the kinetic energy, the magnetic field,
the shape of the trajectory of objects. Now you say that the motion of
the observer cannot alter this particular property of an object. What
makes you say that it's so clear?

[Pentcho Valev]

As the observer starts moving towards the light source, the frequency
he measures increases and if his motion does not alter the wavelength,
then the speed of the light wave (relative to him) increases, goodbye
Einstein etc. The problem is taboo in Einsteiniana but still there are
two exceptions:

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)."

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/25239c921a61d6a0

Tom Roberts: "NOTHING that is intrinsic to the light wave "changes".
But then, wavelength is NOT an intrinsic property of a light wave.
What does change with the observer's velocity is the RELATIONSHIP
between the observer's wavelength-measuring apparatus and the light
wave, and this causes differently moving observers to MEASURE
different wavelengths for the same light wave."

Let us assume that Tom Roberts' statement:

"What does change with the observer's velocity is the RELATIONSHIP
between the observer's wavelength-measuring apparatus and the light
wave"

is correct. Then we consider a stationary observer and a moving source
of light. As the light source starts moving towards the observer, the
frequency the observer measures increases. Does "the RELATIONSHIP

between the observer's wavelength-measuring apparatus and the light

wave" change again? If yes, what triggers this change?

Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com

[PD]

On 12/23/2011 4:59 PM, Pentcho Valev wrote:

>
> Let us assume that Tom Roberts' statement:
>
> "What does change with the observer's velocity is the RELATIONSHIP
> between the observer's wavelength-measuring apparatus and the light
> wave"
>
> is correct. Then we consider a stationary observer and a moving source
> of light. As the light source starts moving towards the observer, the
> frequency the observer measures increases. Does "the RELATIONSHIP
> between the observer's wavelength-measuring apparatus and the light
> wave" change again? If yes, what triggers this change?

At least you're trying to learn.

The statement you made that there is a stationary observer and a moving
source of light. It should be noted that even Galileo (classical
physics, 400 years ago) observed that there is no way to distinguish
whether an object is stationary or moving -- the physics is the same for
both. Thus, a stationary observer and a moving source is physically
indistinguishable from a moving observer and a stationary source. The
only thing you can truly, physically say is that the source and the
observer are in relative motion. The onset of this physical motion is
precisely what triggers the change.

This is true even if the observer feels no acceleration and the source
does feel acceleration. This STILL does not tell you whether the source
is now moving when it was previously stationary.

A simple example illustrates this. Two cars are on the road and they are
not moving relative to each other. The car in the left lane does
something that results in its acceleration, while the car in the right
lane does nothing. Now the cars are in motion relative to each other.
Which car is the one that is now moving, the car in the left lane or the
car in the right lane? If you say it is the car in the left lane because
the car on the left did the acceleration, then you've been fooled. You
see, the car on the left applied its brakes to come to a stop on the
road, while the car on the right kept going.

[Pentcho Valev]

master roberts reply first. little zombie reply second.

Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com

[M Purcell]

On Dec 23, 2:59 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> As the observer starts moving towards the light source, the frequency
> he measures increases and if his motion does not alter the wavelength,
> then the speed of the light wave (relative to him) increases, goodbye
> Einstein etc. The problem is taboo in Einsteiniana but still there are
> two exceptions:
>

> http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/big_bang/ind...

> 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)."
>

> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/25239c921a6...

[M Purcell]

On Dec 23, 2:59 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> As the observer starts moving towards the light source, the frequency
> he measures increases and if his motion does not alter the wavelength,
> then the speed of the light wave (relative to him) increases, goodbye
> Einstein etc. The problem is taboo in Einsteiniana but still there are
> two exceptions:
>

> http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/big_bang/ind...

> 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)."
>

> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/25239c921a6...

> Tom Roberts: "NOTHING that is intrinsic to the light wave "changes".
> But then, wavelength is NOT an intrinsic property of a light wave.
> What does change with the observer's velocity is the RELATIONSHIP
> between the observer's wavelength-measuring apparatus and the light
> wave, and this causes differently moving observers to MEASURE
> different wavelengths for the same light wave."
>
> Let us assume that Tom Roberts' statement:
>
> "What does change with the observer's velocity is the RELATIONSHIP
> between the observer's wavelength-measuring apparatus and the light
> wave"
>
> is correct. Then we consider a stationary observer and a moving source
> of light. As the light source starts moving towards the observer, the
> frequency the observer measures increases. Does "the RELATIONSHIP
> between the observer's wavelength-measuring apparatus and the light
> wave" change again? If yes, what triggers this change?

You have it backwards, it's a red shift, the universe is expanding,

[M Purcell]

On Dec 23, 2:59 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> As the observer starts moving towards the light source, the frequency
> he measures increases and if his motion does not alter the wavelength,
> then the speed of the light wave (relative to him) increases, goodbye
> Einstein etc. The problem is taboo in Einsteiniana but still there are
> two exceptions:
>

> http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/big_bang/ind...

> 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)."
>

> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/25239c921a6...

> Tom Roberts: "NOTHING that is intrinsic to the light wave "changes".
> But then, wavelength is NOT an intrinsic property of a light wave.
> What does change with the observer's velocity is the RELATIONSHIP
> between the observer's wavelength-measuring apparatus and the light
> wave, and this causes differently moving observers to MEASURE
> different wavelengths for the same light wave."
>
> Let us assume that Tom Roberts' statement:
>
> "What does change with the observer's velocity is the RELATIONSHIP
> between the observer's wavelength-measuring apparatus and the light
> wave"
>
> is correct. Then we consider a stationary observer and a moving source
> of light. As the light source starts moving towards the observer, the
> frequency the observer measures increases. Does "the RELATIONSHIP
> between the observer's wavelength-measuring apparatus and the light
> wave" change again? If yes, what triggers this change?

You have it backwards, it's a red shift, the universe is expanding, I
heard sombody blew it up.

[John J Stafford]

The so-called speed of light (SPOL) is the fundamental maximum frequency
of the macro behavior of our universe. There are shorter frequencies in
the quantum realm, and shorter yet beneath the quantum.

Nothing whatsoever we can _measure_ can be detected to be faster than
the speed of light because our instruments are physically limited to
that speed. (Any other results are flaws)

Some quantum phenomena which appear to have outcomes that preceded the
initiation of the experiment are merely events that have already
occurred because they were initiated in a higher frequency than light.
In other words, time 'stopped' to the measurer because it could not
measure times shorter than SPOL.

[Pentcho Valev]

The scenario:

"Stationary light source; the motion of the observer cannot change the
wavelength"

is forbidden in Einsteiniana but the scenario:

"Stationary observer; the motion of the light source CAN change the
wavelength"

is not:

http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-Stephen-Hawking/dp/0553380168
Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 3:
"...we must first understand the Doppler effect. As we have seen,
visible light consists of fluctuations, or waves, in the
electromagnetic field. The wavelength (or distance from one wave crest
to the next) of light is extremely small, ranging from four to seven
ten-millionths of a meter. The different wavelengths of light are what
the human eye sees as different colors, with the longest wavelengths
appearing at the red end of the spectrum and the shortest wavelengths
at the blue end. 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. Correspondingly, if the
source is moving away from us, the wavelength of the waves we receive
will be longer. In the case of light, therefore, means that stars
moving away from us will have their spectra shifted toward the red end
of the spectrum (red-shifted) and those moving toward us will have
their spectra blue-shifted."

Pentcho Valev wrote:

As the observer starts moving towards the light source, the frequency
he measures increases and if his motion does not alter the wavelength,
then the speed of the light wave (relative to him) increases, goodbye
Einstein etc. The problem is taboo in Einsteiniana but still there are
two exceptions:

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)."

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/25239c921a61d6a0
Tom Roberts: "NOTHING that is intrinsic to the light wave "changes".
But then, wavelength is NOT an intrinsic property of a light wave.

What does change with the observer's velocity is the RELATIONSHIP
between the observer's wavelength-measuring apparatus and the light

wave, and this causes differently moving observers to MEASURE
different wavelengths for the same light wave."

Let us assume that Tom Roberts' statement:

"What does change with the observer's velocity is the RELATIONSHIP
between the observer's wavelength-measuring apparatus and the light
wave"

is correct. Then we consider a stationary observer and a moving source
of light. As the light source starts moving towards the observer, the
frequency the observer measures increases. Does "the RELATIONSHIP
between the observer's wavelength-measuring apparatus and the light
wave" change again? If yes, what triggers this change?

Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com

[Peter Webb]

"Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2259e40c-e30b-4343...@z17g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...

> The scenario:
>
> "Stationary light source; the motion of the observer cannot change the
> wavelength"
>
> is forbidden in Einsteiniana

No. Clearly it can and does, google "Doppler Effect".

> but the scenario:
>
> "Stationary observer; the motion of the light source CAN change the
> wavelength"
>
> is not:
>

Yes. Clearly it can and does, google "Doppler Effect".

[Androcles]

"John J Stafford" <jo...@stafford.invalid> wrote in message
news:john-9FC7DA.2...@news.supernews.com...

|
| The so-called speed of light (SPOL) is the fundamental maximum frequency

Learn the difference between speed and frequency, imbecile.

[Pentcho Valev]

http://www.universetoday.com/2010/03/18/this-is-getting-boring-general-relativity-passes-yet-another-big-test/
"In 1960, GR passed its first big test in a lab, here on Earth; the
Pound-Rebka experiment. And over the nine decades since its
publication, GR has passed test after test after test, always with
flying colors."

The Pound-Rebka experiment showed that the frequency varies with the
gravitational potential, phi, in accordance with the equation:

f' = f(1 + phi/c^2)

This means that, given the formula:

(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

either the speed of light varies with the gravitational potential:

c' = c(1 + phi/c^2) (an equation given by Newton's emission theory of
light)

or the wavelength varies with the gravitational potential:

L' = L/(1 + phi/c^2) (an equation which, apart from being suspiciously
ad hoc, is incompatible with the gravitational time dilation
introduced by Einstein in 1911)

Conclusion: The Pound-Rebka experiment UNEQUIVOCALLY confirmed
Newton's emission theory of light.

Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com

[Pentcho Valev]

It is SELF-EVIDENT that the motion of the observer CANNOT alter the
wavelength of sound waves:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Py5uM4V6uWM&feature=related
"Doppler Effect Asymmetry"

In a world different from Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world it would
be SELF-EVIDENT that the motion of the observer CANNOT alter the
wavelength of light waves as well. In Einsteiniana's schizophrenic
world it is SELF-EVIDENT that the motion of the observer DOES alter
something (it could be the wavelength or "the relationship between the
observer's wavelength-measuring apparatus and the light wave" or
whatever) so that the speed of light (relative to the observer) can
remain unchanged and Einsteiniana's bellicose zombies can fiercely
sing "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity" while
persecuting heretics.

Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com

[Tom Roberts]

On 12/26/11 12/26/11 2:24 PM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> It is SELF-EVIDENT that the motion of the observer CANNOT alter the

> wavelength of sound waves:[...]

It is not "self-evident", but yes, from experimental measurements we know that
the motion of an observer does not affect the measured wavelength of sound waves.

> In a world different from Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world it would
> be SELF-EVIDENT that the motion of the observer CANNOT alter the
> wavelength of light waves as well.

What you think would be "self-evident" in a counter-factual world is irrelevant.
All that matters is the world we inhabit, and in that world, the wavelength of a
light wave is NOT an intrinsic aspect of the wave, but rather represents a
RELATIONSHIP between wave and measuring instrument. Differently moving observers
in different inertial frames can AND DO measure different values for the
wavelength of a given light wave.

Analogy:
If you hold a meterstick parallel to a 1-meter rod, you will measure its length
as 1 meter. If you hold a meterstick at an angle relative to the rod, and
project the rod's endpoints perpendicularly onto the ruler, you will measure A
DIFFERENT VALUE. This has nothing to do with "altering" or "changing" the length
of the rod -- indeed it is "self-evident" that the rod ITSELF is not affected;
nor are the metersticks -- this has to do with the RELATIONSHIP between rod and
measuring instrument.

The same holds for the different observers measuring different values for the
wavelength of a given light wave -- their measuring instruments have DIFFERENT
relationships to the wave, and hence measure DIFFERENT values for its wavelength.

BTW they also measure DIFFERENT values for its frequency -- their
clocks also have DIFFERENT relationships to the light wave.
Unsurprisingly, the two effects are related so that they all obtain
the same value for wavelength*frequency = wave speed = c.

> In Einsteiniana's schizophrenic
> world

The only "schizophrenia" here is in VALEV -- he is completely unable to either
understand relativity or to remember what he has been told in the past. He
ascribes his own failings to others, and his own mistakes to "Einsteiniana".

Why Valev is so ignorant of this remains a mystery, after having
been told this many times. Indeed, astronomers have known it since
the 1887 observations of Vogel and Scheiner, who measured the "annual
Doppler effect" -- redshift due to the earth's orbital velocity.


Tom Roberts

[Zinnic]

What is the frequency and wavelength of a standing wave? Do they
change if an observer moves past it? THINK on it!!

[Zinnic]

> http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/big_bang/ind...

> 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)."
>

> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/25239c921a6...

> Tom Roberts: "NOTHING that is intrinsic to the light wave "changes".
> But then, wavelength is NOT an intrinsic property of a light wave.
> What does change with the observer's velocity is the RELATIONSHIP
> between the observer's wavelength-measuring apparatus and the light
> wave, and this causes differently moving observers to MEASURE
> different wavelengths for the same light wave."
>
> Let us assume that Tom Roberts' statement:
>
> "What does change with the observer's velocity is the RELATIONSHIP
> between the observer's wavelength-measuring apparatus and the light
> wave"
>
> is correct. Then we consider a stationary observer and a moving source
> of light. As the light source starts moving towards the observer, the
> frequency the observer measures increases. Does "the RELATIONSHIP
> between the observer's wavelength-measuring apparatus and the light
> wave" change again? If yes, what triggers this change?
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com

The "trigger" is the start of the movement of the light source towards
the observer! What could be more obvious?

[Tom Roberts]

On 12/26/11 12/26/11 10:16 PM, Zinnic wrote:
> What is the frequency and wavelength of a standing wave? Do they
> change if an observer moves past it? THINK on it!!

As I have said so often, the frequency and wavelength of light ITSELF do not
"change" -- they are not intrinsic properties of the light wave; since they have
no definite values of and by themselves, "change" does not apply. But SR
predicts the frequency and wavelength of the light will be measured to be
different by an observer moving relative to the standing wave, compared to
measurements in the unique inertial frame in which it is "standing".


Tom Roberts

[Pentcho Valev]

On Dec 27 Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:

> On 12/26/11 Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> > It is SELF-EVIDENT that the motion of the observer CANNOT alter the
> > wavelength of sound waves:

> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Py5uM4V6uWM&feature=related
> > "Doppler Effect Asymmetry"
>

> It is not "self-evident", but yes, from experimental measurements we know that
> the motion of an observer does not affect the measured wavelength of sound waves.
>
> > In a world different from Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world it would
> > be SELF-EVIDENT that the motion of the observer CANNOT alter the
> > wavelength of light waves as well.
>
> What you think would be "self-evident" in a counter-factual world is irrelevant.
> All that matters is the world we inhabit, and in that world, the wavelength of a
> light wave is NOT an intrinsic aspect of the wave, but rather represents a
> RELATIONSHIP between wave and measuring instrument. Differently moving observers
> in different inertial frames can AND DO measure different values for the
> wavelength of a given light wave.

Honest Roberts,

It is SELF-EVIDENT that, when two adjacent wavecrests approach the
observer but have not reached him yet, the distance between them
(called "wavelength") CANNOT vary with the speed of the observer. Then
the two wavecrests pass the observer so that he can, in principle,
measure the distance between them. Divine Albert's Divine Special
Relativity predicts that, for an object passing the observer with
speed v lower than c, the measuring procedure shows lengths of parts
of the object varying with v so that believers cannot help singing
"Divine Einstein", tearing their clothes and going into convulsions.

However Divine Albert's Divine Special Relativity says nothing,
absolutely nothing, about the variation of the distance between two
wavecrests passing the observer with speed c or c+v.

Honest Roberts, your modesty notwithstanding, I feel forced to call
the attention to the two most important discoveries in physics since
1905, two discoveries made by Tom Honest Roberts by virtue of which
Divine Albert's Divine Special Relativity became absolute and eternal:

1. The initially stationary observer starts moving towards the light
source with speed v. His wavelength-measuring instrument, whatever
this might mean, automatically starts showing a contracted wavelength
so that the speed of the light wave relative to the observer can
gloriously remain the same. The effect is called "Roberts wavelength
contraction" (not to be confused with "Lorentz length contraction").

2. The speed of light is a glorious constant but even if "light in
vacuum does not travel at the invariant speed of the Lorentz
transform", Divine Albert's Divine Special Relativity "would be
unaffected" and "today's foundations of modern physics would not be
threatened":

http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/dc1ebdf49c012de2
Tom Roberts: "If it is ultimately discovered that the photon has a
nonzero mass (i.e. light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant
speed of the Lorentz transform), SR would be unaffected but both
Maxwell's equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their domains
of applicability would be reduced)."

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/msg/44d3ebf3b94d89ad
Tom Roberts: "As I said before, Special Relativity would not be
affected by a non-zero photon mass, as Einstein's second postulate is
not required in a modern derivation (using group theory one obtains
three related theories, two of which are solidly refuted
experimentally and the third is SR). So today's foundations of modern
physics would not be threatened."

Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 18:44:23 -0600, Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:

>On 12/26/11 12/26/11 2:24 PM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>> It is SELF-EVIDENT that the motion of the observer CANNOT alter the
>> wavelength of sound waves:[...]
>
>It is not "self-evident", but yes, from experimental measurements we know that
>the motion of an observer does not affect the measured wavelength of sound waves.
>
>
>> In a world different from Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world it would
>> be SELF-EVIDENT that the motion of the observer CANNOT alter the
>> wavelength of light waves as well.
>
>What you think would be "self-evident" in a counter-factual world is irrelevant.
>All that matters is the world we inhabit, and in that world, the wavelength of a
>light wave is NOT an intrinsic aspect of the wave, but rather represents a
>RELATIONSHIP between wave and measuring instrument. Differently moving observers
>in different inertial frames can AND DO measure different values for the
>wavelength of a given light wave.
>
>Analogy:
>If you hold a meterstick parallel to a 1-meter rod, you will measure its length
>as 1 meter. If you hold a meterstick at an angle relative to the rod, and
>project the rod's endpoints perpendicularly onto the ruler, you will measure A
>DIFFERENT VALUE.

No you wont. They will cart you off to the asylum before you have a chance.

[Zinnic]

On Dec 26, 11:49 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

I agree, that is true even in Newton's relativity.
The anti- Einsteinians cannot cope with the uncertainty of a
relativity in which there is no absolute state of rest to which they
can anchor themselves.
They flounder in space when asked how they can determine which is/are
moving when bodies separate or approach each other. Whilst mocking the
use of different inertial frames of reference in SR, they themselves
employ it in classical Newtonian mechanics,
Zinnic

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 07:38:00 -0800 (PST), Zinnic <zinni...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Dec 26, 11:49 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> On12/26/11 12/26/11  10:16 PM, Zinnic wrote:
>>
>> > What is the frequency and wavelength of a standing wave? Do they
>> > change if an observer moves past  it? THINK on it!!
>>
>> As I have said so often, the frequency and wavelength of light ITSELF do not
>> "change" -- they are not intrinsic properties of the light wave; since they have
>> no definite values of and by themselves, "change" does not apply. But SR
>> predicts the frequency and wavelength of the light will be measured to be
>> different by an observer moving relative to the standing wave, compared to
>> measurements in the unique inertial frame in which it is "standing".
>>
>> Tom Roberts
>
>I agree, that is true even in Newton's relativity.
>The anti- Einsteinians cannot cope with the uncertainty of a
>relativity in which there is no absolute state of rest to which they
>can anchor themselves.

What the hell are you talking about, moron? BaTh doesn't require an absolute
reference frame. It is TRUE relativity.

>They flounder in space when asked how they can determine which is/are
>moving when bodies separate or approach each other. Whilst mocking the
>use of different inertial frames of reference in SR, they themselves
>employ it in classical Newtonian mechanics,

You are even more clueless than roberts.

There is no fucking aether you dopey bastard!

Light is ballistic in all FoRs.

>Zinnic

[PD]

On 12/26/2011 2:24 PM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> It is SELF-EVIDENT that the motion of the observer CANNOT alter the
> wavelength of sound waves:

And yet it is not self-evident that the motion of the observer cannot
alter the velocity or momentum or kinetic energy or magnetic field of
objects. In fact, the opposite is true, and it's fairly evident that the
motion of the observer DOES alter these things.

And so, Pentcho, you are stuck with having to make an arbitrary choice.
Are the wavelengths of light like the wavelength of sound, or are they
like the other properties of other things?

And why do you make the arbitrary choice that you do, especially since
you're doing it on HUNCH and INTUITION, when you could be making the
choice using *MEASUREMENTS*?

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

24039
...and still no contribution to science.

[Tom Roberts]

On 12/27/11 12/27/11 1:33 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> It is SELF-EVIDENT that, [...]

I give up. I am only interested in discussing physics with other people who are
also interested in physics. You CLEARLY are not -- you are only interested in
insulting others and discussing what you think is "self evident". That is not
science.

And you cannot even read what I write, so this is doubly hopeless.

Goodbye.


Tom Roberts

[Pentcho Valev]

Goodbye, Honest Roberts.

Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com

[Zinnic]

On Dec 27, 2:47 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 07:38:00 -0800 (PST), Zinnic <zinnic....@gmail.com>

Your post contains only infantile assertions, nothing remotely
relevant to justification or rational discussion. let us check it's
total content together:

BaTh doesn't require an absolute reference frame. It is TRUE
relativity.

You are even more clueless than roberts.
There is no fucking aether you dopey bastard!
Light is ballistic in all FoRs.

Hmm! Nothing at all. Exactly what one expects from a D.Sc. (Dip
Schit)

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 03:56:01 -0800 (PST), Zinnic <zinni...@gmail.com>
wrote:

....gawd! ..yet another indoctrinated parrot...

[Michael Moroney]

You are going about this wrong. Arguing with kooks is done as a form of
entertainment, not to try to teach them anything. Kooks are incapable
of learning. Trying to teach them is a task for Sisyphus. Many kooks
have been here for years and still haven't learned anything. An example
is Ken Seto who has been here for something like 16 years and still
doesn't understand SR, even though someone tries to explain SR to him
once a week or so.

So either enjoy watching the kooks kook by poking them with facts or
find a better form of entertainment.

[Michael Moroney]

You are doing it all wrong. You have to treat arguing with kooks here as
a form of entertainment, not as a task that you can expect any sort of
success. Teaching kooks physics here is a task as likely as having
success as Sisyphus will. Some haven't learned in years and years.
Ken Seto, for example, has been kooking about SR for something like 16
years, and he *still* doesn't understand SR, even though someone tries to
explain SR to him once aa week or so.

Either enjoy watching kooks kook as you poke them with facts or move on.