FUNDAMENTAL DOUBLETHINK IN EINSTEINIANA
Pentcho Valev
FALSE, "NOTHING WILL REMAIN OF CONTEMPORARY PHYSICS":
http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf/files/975547d7-2d00-433a-b7e3-4a09145525ca.pdf
EINSTEIN'S 1954 CONFESSION: "I consider it entirely possible that
physics cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous
structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air,
including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of
contemporary physics."
A clue to EINSTEIN'S 1954 CONFESSION:
Albert Einstein: "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by
the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and
theory of gravity is false."
A clue to EINSTEIN'S 1954 CONFESSION:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/genius/
"Genius Among Geniuses" by Thomas Levenson
"And then, in June, Einstein completes special relativity, which adds
a twist to the story: Einstein's March paper treated light as
particles, but special relativity sees light as a continuous field of
waves. Alice's Red Queen can accept many impossible things before
breakfast, but it takes a supremely confident mind to do so. Einstein,
age 26, sees light as wave and particle, picking the attribute he
needs to confront each problem in turn. Now that's tough."
A clue to EINSTEIN'S 1954 CONFESSION:
http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
"Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested
in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second
principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do
far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the
particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it.
And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these
particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian
relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the
Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths,
local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein
resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of
particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and
introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less
obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."
A clue to EINSTEIN'S 1954 CONFESSION:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0305/0305457v3.pdf
New varying speed of light theories
Joao Magueijo
"In sharp contrast, the constancy of the speed of light has remain
sacred, and the term "heresy" is occasionally used in relation to
"varying speed of light theories". The reason is clear: the constancy
of c, unlike the constancy of G or e, is the pillar of special
relativity and thus of modern physics. Varying c theories are expected
to cause much more structural damage to physics formalism than other
varying constant theories."
A clue to EINSTEIN'S 1954 CONFESSION:
http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
The farce of physics
Bryan Wallace
"Einstein's special relativity theory with his second postulate that
the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin that holds the
whole range of modern physics theories together. Shatter this
postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate farce! (...) The
speed of light is c+v."
A clue to EINSTEIN'S 1954 CONFESSION:
http://www.academie-sciences.fr/membres/in_memoriam/Einstein/Einstein_pdf/Einstein_eloge.pdf
Louis de Broglie: "Tout d'abord toute idée de "grain" se trouvait
expulsée de la théorie de la Lumière : celle-ci prenait la forme d'une
"théorie du champ" où le rayonnement était représenté par une
répartition continue dans l'espace de grandeurs évoluant continûment
au cours du temps sans qu'il fût possible de distinguer, dans les
domaines spatiaux au sein desquels évoluait le champ lumineux, de très
petites régions singulières où le champ serait très fortement
concentré et qui fournirait une image du type corpusculaire. Ce
caractère à la fois continu et ondulatoire de la lumière se trouvait
prendre une forme très précise dans la théorie de Maxwell où le champ
lumineux venait se confondre avec un certain type de champ
électromagnétique."
Also, one sincerely believes that, IF EINSTEIN'S 1905 LIGHT POSTULATE
IS FALSE, SPECIAL RELATIVITY "WOULD NOT BE AFFECTED":
http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/Chronogeometrie.pdf
Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond "De la relativité à la chronogéométrie ou: Pour
en finir avec le "second postulat" et autres fossiles": "D'autre part,
nous savons aujourd'hui que l'invariance de la vitesse de la lumière
est une conséquence de la nullité de la masse du photon. Mais,
empiriquement, cette masse, aussi faible soit son actuelle borne
supérieure expérimentale, ne peut et ne pourra jamais être considérée
avec certitude comme rigoureusement nulle. Il se pourrait même que de
futures mesures mettent en évidence une masse infime, mais non-nulle,
du photon ; la lumière alors n'irait plus à la "vitesse de la
lumière", ou, plus précisément, la vitesse de la lumière, désormais
variable, ne s'identifierait plus à la vitesse limite invariante. Les
procédures opérationnelles mises en jeu par le "second postulat"
deviendraient caduques ipso facto. La théorie elle-même en serait-elle
invalidée ? Heureusement, il n'en est rien ; mais, pour s'en assurer,
il convient de la refonder sur des bases plus solides, et d'ailleurs
plus économiques. En vérité, le premier postulat suffit, à la
condition de l'exploiter à fond."
http://www.hep.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/mechanics/levy-leblond_ajp_44_271_76.pdf
Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond: "This is the point of view from wich I intend
to criticize the overemphasized role of the speed of light in the
foundations of the special relativity, and to propose an approach to
these foundations that dispenses with the hypothesis of the invariance
of c. (...) We believe that special relativity at the present time
stands as a universal theory discribing the structure of a common
space-time arena in which all fundamental processes take place. (...)
The evidence of the nonzero mass of the photon would not, as such,
shake in any way the validity of the special relalivity. It would,
however, nullify all its derivations which are based on the invariance
of the photon velocity."
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://www.amazon.com/Einsteins-Relativity-Beyond-Approaches-Theoretical/dp/9810238886
Jong-Ping Hsu: "The fundamentally new ideas of the first purpose are
developed on the basis of the term paper of a Harvard physics
undergraduate. They lead to an unexpected affirmative answer to the
long-standing question of whether it is possible to construct a
relativity theory without postulating the constancy of the speed of
light and retaining only the first postulate of special relativity.
This question was discussed in the early years following the discovery
of special relativity by many physicists, including Ritz, Tolman,
Kunz, Comstock and Pauli, all of whom obtained negative answers."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026801.500-why-einstein-was-wrong-about-relativity.html
Why Einstein was wrong about relativity
29 October 2008, Mark Buchanan, NEW SCIENTIST
"This "second postulate" is the source of all Einstein's eccentric
physics of shrinking space and haywire clocks. And with a little
further thought, it leads to the equivalence of mass and energy
embodied in the iconic equation E = mc2. The argument is not about the
physics, which countless experiments have confirmed. It is about
whether we can reach the same conclusions without hoisting light onto
its highly irregular pedestal. (...) But in fact, says Feigenbaum,
both Galileo and Einstein missed a surprising subtlety in the maths -
one that renders Einstein's second postulate superfluous. (...) The
idea that Einstein's relativity has nothing to do with light could
actually come in rather handy. For one thing, it rules out a nasty
shock if anyone were ever to prove that photons, the particles of
light, have mass. We know that the photon's mass is very small - less
than 10-49 grams. A photon with any mass at all would imply that our
understanding of electricity and magnetism is wrong, and that electric
charge might not be conserved. That would be problem enough, but a
massive photon would also spell deep trouble for the second postulate,
as a photon with mass would not necessarily always travel at the same
speed. Feigenbaum's work shows how, contrary to many physicists'
beliefs, this need not be a problem for relativity."
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/msg/44d3ebf3b94d89ad
Tom Roberts, Aug 16, 2010: "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.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0806/0806.1234v1.pdf
Mitchell J. Feigenbaum: "In this paper, not only do I show that the
constant speed of light is unnecessary for the construction of the
theories of relativity, but overwhelmingly more, there is no room for
it in the theory."
http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17.html#seventeen
George Orwell: "Doublethink means the power of holding two
contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both
of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories
must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with
reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself
that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it
would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to
be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and
hence of guilt. Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since
the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while
retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To
tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any
fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary
again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed,
to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take
account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably
necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to
exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is
tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this
knowledge ; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead
of the truth. (...) It need hardly be said that the subtlest
practitioners of doublethink are those who invented doublethink and
know that it is a vast system of mental cheating. In our society,
those who have the best knowledge of what is happening are also those
who are furthest from seeing the world as it is. In general, the
greater the understanding, the greater the delusion ; the more
intelligent, the less sane."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Stamenin
> One sincerely believes that, IF EINSTEIN'S 1905 LIGHT POSTULATE IS
> FALSE, "NOTHING WILL REMAIN OF CONTEMPORARY PHYSICS":
>
> Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond: "This is the point of view from wich I intend
> to criticize the overemphasized role of the speed of light in the
> foundations of the special relativity, and to propose an approach to
> these foundations that dispenses with the hypothesis of the invariance
> of c. (...) We believe that special relativity at the present time
> stands as a universal theory discribing the structure of a common
> space-time arena in which all fundamental processes take place. (...)
> The evidence of the nonzero mass of the photon would not, as such,
> shake in any way the validity of the special relalivity. It would,
> however, nullify all its derivations which are based on the invariance
> of the photon velocity."
>
> 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)."
>
> Jong-Ping Hsu: "The fundamentally new ideas of the first purpose are
> developed on the basis of the term paper of a Harvard physics
> undergraduate. They lead to an unexpected affirmative answer to the
> long-standing question of whether it is possible to construct a
> relativity theory without postulating the constancy of the speed of
> light and retaining only the first postulate of special relativity.
> This question was discussed in the early years following the discovery
> of special relativity by many physicists, including Ritz, Tolman,
> Kunz, Comstock and Pauli, all of whom obtained negative answers."
>
Light postulate is a consequence of the LT. It is so difficult to see
that LT is totally errant math relation? Why are needed so many long
debates about about that light postulate?
Stamenin
Pentcho Valev
more frequently BECAUSE THE WAVE SPEED RELATIVE TO HIM HAS INCREASED.
This trivial truth is fatal for Einstein's 1905 false light postulate
so in Einsteiniana one is forced to sincerely believe in the following
blatant lie:
If an observer accelerates towards the light source, wavecrests hit
him more frequently BECAUSE THE WAVELENGTH HAS DECREASED:
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)."
Only the cleverest Einsteinians, "the subtlest practitioners of
doublethink", are able to commute between the trivial truth and the
blatant lie without difficulties. Silly Einsteinians tend to forget
the trivial truth and universalize the blatant lie:
http://sampit.geol.sc.edu/Doppler.html
"Moving observer: A man is standing on the beach, watching the tide.
The waves are washing into the shore and over his feet with a constant
frequency and wavelength. However, if he begins walking out into the
ocean, the waves will begin hitting him more frequently, leading him
to perceive that the wavelength of the waves has decreased."
Sometimes clever Einsteinians manage to bring silly Einsteinians under
control - the above universalization of the blatant lie disappeared
from the University of South Carolina's site recently, after I started
citing it too often.
Pentcho Valev
the wavecrests hit the observer more frequently (than they would in
the absence of a gravitational field) because THE SPEED OF THE LIGHT
HAS INCREASED.
Einstein explicitly stuck to this trivial truth and today's
Einsteinians sincerely believe in it. However (it can be proved that)
the trivial truth is fatal for Einstein's 1905 false light postulate
so in Einsteiniana one is forced to sincerely believe in the following
blatant lie ("always one leap ahead of the truth"):
THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS CONSTANT IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD:
http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-Stephen-Hawking/dp/0553380168
Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 6:
"Under the theory that light is made up of waves, it was not clear how
it would respond to gravity. But if light is composed of particles,
one might expect them to be affected by gravity in the same way that
cannonballs, rockets, and planets are.....In fact, it is not really
consistent to treat light like cannonballs in Newton's theory of
gravity because the speed of light is fixed. (A cannonball fired
upward from the earth will be slowed down by gravity and will
eventually stop and fall back; a photon, however, must continue upward
at a constant speed...)"
http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_sp_gr.html
"Is light affected by gravity? If so, how can the speed of light be
constant? Wouldn't the light coming off of the Sun be slower than the
light we make here? If not, why doesn't light escape a black hole?
Yes, light is affected by gravity, but not in its speed. General
Relativity (our best guess as to how the Universe works) gives two
effects of gravity on light. It can bend light (which includes effects
such as gravitational lensing), and it can change the energy of light.
But it changes the energy by shifting the frequency of the light
(gravitational redshift) not by changing light speed. Gravity bends
light by warping space so that what the light beam sees as "straight"
is not straight to an outside observer. The speed of light is still
constant." Dr. Eric Christian
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html
Steve Carlip: "Einstein went on to discover a more general theory of
relativity which explained gravity in terms of curved spacetime, and
he talked about the speed of light changing in this new theory. In the
1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote:
". . . according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the
constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of
the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity
[. . .] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of
light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light
varies with position." Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector
quantity: speed with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not
clear that he meant the speed will change, but the reference to
special relativity suggests that he did mean so. THIS INTERPRETATION
IS PERFECTLY VALID AND MAKES GOOD PHYSICAL SENSE, BUT A MORE MODERN
INTERPRETATION IS THAT THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS CONSTANT in general
relativity."
Androcles
"Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a399efba-fe70-491c...@d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
| If the top of the tower emits light towards an observer on the ground,
| the wavecrests hit the observer more frequently
What, more wavecrests arrive than were sent?
That's quite funny, Pentcho.
Pentcho Valev
> "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> | If the top of the tower emits light towards an observer on the ground,
> | the wavecrests hit the observer more frequently
>
> What, more wavecrests arrive than were sent?
No. Photons pass the observer at a speed greater than c and that is
detected experimentally as an increase in frequency (the Pound-Rebka
experiment). The number of photons (wavecrests) arrived is equal to
the number of the photons (wavecrests) sent.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Androcles
On Sep 5, 2:16 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_aa> wrote:
> "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> | If the top of the tower emits light towards an observer on the ground,
> | the wavecrests hit the observer more frequently
>
> What, more wavecrests arrive than were sent?
No. Photons pass the observer at a speed greater than c and that is
detected experimentally as an increase in frequency
==================================
What, more wavecrests arrive than were sent?
I'm at the top of a tower, I drop one ball each hour on the hour.
The balls all accelerate at 32 fps/s, and arrive on the ground with
a frequency of (drum roll and trumpet fanfare please) TADA!
... one ball an hour.
You are never going to increase that to two balls an hour and
no properly controlled experiment will measure any increase
in frequency not matter what velocity the balls are accelerated
to.
Think, man! Don't just wave symbols around like a relativist.
Stamenin
In all this discussion you do not take in consideration that you see
the light from two different coordinate systems. One attached to the
earth and one to the observer. So the speed of the light is the sum of
the two speeds c+v. And this is the only truth about this
contradictory discussion and that shows that Einstein is wrong in his
theory. But do not forget that Einstein said that the Principle of the
constancy of the light speed is a consequence of the LT, and or they
both are wrong or both are right. And this consideration brings us to
the conclusion that every thing is wrong, the Special and the General
theories of relativity.
Stamenin
Darwin123
> I'm at the top of a tower, I drop one ball each hour on the hour.
> The balls all accelerate at 32 fps/s, and arrive on the ground with
> a frequency of (drum roll and trumpet fanfare please) TADA!
> ... one ball an hour.
> You are never going to increase that to two balls an hour and
> no properly controlled experiment will measure any increase
> in frequency not matter what velocity the balls are accelerated
> to.
Duuuuhhhhhh,
At any instant the balls are moving at different velocities. So if
a rocket moves down faster than the fastest ball, it will pass the
balls at a frequency higher they were dropped.
Androcles
"Stamenin" <tas...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:85f854ab-ee83-4537...@t5g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 5, 6:52 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 5, 2:16 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_aa> wrote:
>
> > "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > | If the top of the tower emits light towards an observer on the ground,
> > | the wavecrests hit the observer more frequently
>
> > What, more wavecrests arrive than were sent?
>
> No. Photons pass the observer at a speed greater than c and that is
> detected experimentally as an increase in frequency (the Pound-Rebka
> experiment). The number of photons (wavecrests) arrived is equal to
> the number of the photons (wavecrests) sent.
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com
In all this discussion you do not take in consideration that you see
the light from two different coordinate systems. One attached to the
earth and one to the observer. So the speed of the light is the sum of
the two speeds c+v. And this is the only truth about this
contradictory discussion and that shows that Einstein is wrong in his
theory. But do not forget that Einstein said that the Principle of the
constancy of the light speed is a consequence of the LT,
=========================================
But do not forget that Einstein drooled nothing of the kind.
Androcles
"Darwin123" <drose...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5d60d685-4af7-471e...@a36g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 5, 1:16 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_aa> wrote:
> I'm at the top of a tower, I drop one ball each hour on the hour.
> The balls all accelerate at 32 fps/s, and arrive on the ground with
> a frequency of (drum roll and trumpet fanfare please) TADA!
> ... one ball an hour.
> You are never going to increase that to two balls an hour and
> no properly controlled experiment will measure any increase
> in frequency not matter what velocity the balls are accelerated
> to.
Duuuuhhhhhh,
At any instant the balls are moving at different velocities.
=======================================
Which means the distance between them is not constant and says
nothing at all about frequency.
Ever seen cars leaving a toll booth, drosen? The same number of
cars per hour arrive at the next toll booth but they do not drive
bumper-to-bumper in between.
Get a brain, duh-duh-duh dork drosen.
Pentcho Valev
> I'm at the top of a tower, I drop one ball each hour on the hour.
> The balls all accelerate at 32 fps/s, and arrive on the ground with
> a frequency of (drum roll and trumpet fanfare please) TADA!
> ... one ball an hour.
Sure.
> You are never going to increase that to two balls an hour and
> no properly controlled experiment will measure any increase
> in frequency not matter what velocity the balls are accelerated
> to.
If photons arrive on the ground with a speed greater than c (relative
to the ground), then observers on the ground (e.g. Pound and Rebka)
measure the frequency to be increased. I cannot combine photons and
wavecrests in a reasonable physical model (nobody can for the moment)
so I am not able to give you more clarification.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Androcles
Pound and Rebka used sound and had no horizontal control experiment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment
To see gravity accelerate light directly (stretching wavelength,
frequency constant) watch part 2 of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T0d7o8X2-E
I repeat: no properly controlled experiment will measure any increase
in frequency when source and detector are relatively at rest, no matter
what velocity the particles are accelerated to; it is impossible to receive
more particles than were sent.
Pound and Rebka failed to provide a control and there has to be some
logical defect in their reasoning. Without their lab notes I am not about
to find it.
Pentcho Valev
Orwell had elaborated on his famous 2+2=5 scenario, he would certainly
have described a terminal madness forcing one to sincerely believe in
both 2+2=5 and 2+2=4, "with 2+2=5 always one leap ahead of 2+2=4":
http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-7.html
George Orwell: "In the end the Party would announce that two and two
made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that
they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their
position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the
very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their
philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was
terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise,
but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two
and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the
past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist
only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"
Needless to say, revolutions in science of Kuhnian type are impossible
in the presence of doublethink. Consider, for instance, the situation
in thermodynamics where one sincerely believes both that "were it not
for the existence of irreversible processes, the entire edifice of the
second law would crumble" and that "thermodynamics is concerned with
reversible processes and equilibrium states...it can have nothing to
do with irreversible processes or systems out of equilibrium":
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/
Jos Uffink, Bluff your Way in the Second Law of Thermodynamics, pp.
3-4
Such a "science" cannot be developed, either in a revolutionary or in
an evolutionary way. It can only be taught to students who find
learning by rote natural.
Androcles
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_aa> wrote in message
news:bL_go.19719$Y12....@newsfe25.ams2...
one speed of light rather than Earthward accelerated gamma rays.
The Grusenick effect may be far more important to physics than
anything Pound and Rebka did. Once it is understand that light
can be accelerated the possibility of high speed interplanetary
communication opens up.
waldofj
> On Sep 5, 6:52 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 5, 2:16 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_aa> wrote:
>
> > > "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > | If the top of the tower emits light towards an observer on the ground,
> > > | the wavecrests hit the observer more frequently
>
> > > What, more wavecrests arrive than were sent?
>
> > No. Photons pass the observer at a speed greater than c and that is
> > detected experimentally as an increase in frequency (the Pound-Rebka
> > experiment). The number of photons (wavecrests) arrived is equal to
> > the number of the photons (wavecrests) sent.
>
> > Pentcho Valev
> > pva...@yahoo.com
>
> In all this discussion you do not take in consideration that you see
> the light from two different coordinate systems. One attached to the
> earth and one to the observer. So the speed of the light is the sum of
> the two speeds c+v.
wrong
> And this is the only truth about this
> contradictory discussion and that shows that Einstein is wrong in his
> theory. But do not forget that Einstein said that the Principle of the
> constancy of the light speed is a consequence of the LT,
wrong. Don't you know how to read?
> and or they
> both are wrong or both are right. And this consideration brings us to
> the conclusion that every thing is wrong, the Special and the General
> theories of relativity.
we have another Ostrich
> Stamenin
Androcles
"waldofj" <wal...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:4c31ab2c-a89f-4b5d...@t20g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 5, 1:25 pm, Stamenin <task...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 5, 6:52 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 5, 2:16 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_aa> wrote:
>
> > > "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > | If the top of the tower emits light towards an observer on the
> > > ground,
> > > | the wavecrests hit the observer more frequently
>
> > > What, more wavecrests arrive than were sent?
>
> > No. Photons pass the observer at a speed greater than c and that is
> > detected experimentally as an increase in frequency (the Pound-Rebka
> > experiment). The number of photons (wavecrests) arrived is equal to
> > the number of the photons (wavecrests) sent.
>
> > Pentcho Valev
> > pva...@yahoo.com
>
> In all this discussion you do not take in consideration that you see
> the light from two different coordinate systems. One attached to the
> earth and one to the observer. So the speed of the light is the sum of
> the two speeds c+v.
wrong
Too bad it falls on your deaf ears, imbecile.
> And this is the only truth about this
> contradictory discussion and that shows that Einstein is wrong in his
> theory. But do not forget that Einstein said that the Principle of the
> constancy of the light speed is a consequence of the LT,
wrong. Don't you know how to read?
Too bad it falls on your deaf ears, moron.
> and or they
> both are wrong or both are right. And this consideration brings us to
> the conclusion that every thing is wrong, the Special and the General
> theories of relativity.
we have another Ostrich
Too bad it falls on your deaf ears, shithead.
Pentcho Valev
devastated, this could be a nice clue to disentagling part of
Einsteiniana's doublethink:
http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Light_Propagation_in_a_Gravitational_Field.pdf
"In 1911 Einstein published the paper "On the Influence of Gravitation
on the Propagation of Light." (...) Light is blue-shifted (has a
higher frequency) as it approaches a massive body... (...) Similarly,
light red-shifts and goes to a lower frequency as it escapes a massive
body... (...) To counter the absurdity that more or less periods per
second can be received than were emitted, Einstein argues that this is
because the time is dilated near a massive body... (...) When the
velocity of light c is measured at S1 and S2 with identical clocks in
local time, the speed of light is always the same. When clocks
corrected for gravitational time dilation are used instead, (count in
common or absolute time) the light at S2 is travelling faster than the
light at S1. The speed of light c is no longer constant, but increases
with increasing phi. c=co(1+phi/c2). where co is the speed of light
when phi=0."
Pentcho Valev wrote:
If the top of the tower emits light towards an observer on the ground,
If an observer accelerates towards the wave source, wavecrests hit him
http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17.html#seventeen