The Subtlest Practitioner of Doublethink in Einsteiniana

[Pentcho Valev]

For all waves (light waves included), when the initially stationary observer starts moving towards the wave source with speed v, the frequency he measures shifts from f=c/λ to f'=(c+v)/λ, where c is the speed of the waves relative to the stationary observer and λ is the wavelength. Given the formula

(measured frequency) = (speed of the waves relative to the observer)/(wavelength),

the shift in frequency entails that the speed of the waves relative to the observer has shifted from c to c'=c+v, a conclusion which, when applied to light waves, topples Einstein's relativity.

The only way to save Einstein's "theory" is to assume that the the motion of the observer miraculously changes the wavelength of the incoming light, even though this does not happen for any other type of wave. Einstein's relativity is saved if, as the observer starts moving towards the source with speed v, the wavelength of the light he is going to meet shifts from λ to λ'=cλ/(c+v).

This ad hoc wavelength shift assumption is similar to the ad hoc length contraction assumption of FitzGerald and Lorentz and is likewise idiotic. Clever Einsteinians know that and never discuss it - the crimestop surrounding the ad hoc wavelength shift assumption is almost absolute in Einstein schizophrenic world:

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwell/george/o79n/chapter2.9.html
"Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."

Still there is one exception. John Norton, perhaps the cleverest living Einsteinian, teaches the idiotic wavelength shift assumption with ease:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/big_bang_observed/index.html
John Norton: "Every sound or light wave has a particular frequency and wavelength. In sound, they determine the pitch; in light they determine the color. 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)."

Why is John Norton teaching the idiocy as if he believes it? Actually he both believes and does not believe it, like any subtle practitioner of doublethink:

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwell/george/o79n/chapter2.9.html
"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. [...] 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

[Dan Christensen]

On Monday, June 20, 2016 at 2:14:18 AM UTC-4, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> For all waves...


How does Pentcho Valev rank on the Crackpot Index? First, some background on PV:

http://bip.cnrs-mrs.fr/bip10/valevfaq.htm


What is the Crackpot Index? See:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html


Readers can judge for themselves.

Dan

[Pentcho Valev]

The ad hoc wavelength shift assumption is so idiotic that sometimes Einsteinians inadvertently negate it (below: "the distances between subsequent pulses are not affected") and so refute Einstein's relativity by showing that the speed of light varies with the speed of the observer (receiver):

http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler
Albert Einstein Institute: "The frequency of a wave-like signal - such as sound or light - depends on the movement of the sender and of the receiver. This is known as the Doppler effect. (...) Here is an animation of the receiver moving towards the source:

http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_static.gif (stationary receiver)

http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_detector_blue.gif (moving receiver)

By observing the two indicator lights, you can see for yourself that, once more, there is a blue-shift - the pulse frequency measured at the receiver is somewhat higher than the frequency with which the pulses are sent out. This time, the distances between subsequent pulses are not affected, but still there is a frequency shift: As the receiver moves towards each pulse, the time until pulse and receiver meet up is shortened. In this particular animation, which has the receiver moving towards the source at one third the speed of the pulses themselves, four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses." [end of quotation]

Since "four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses", the speed of the pulses relative to the receiver is greater than their speed relative to the source, in violation of Einstein's relativity.

Actually any correct interpretation of the Doppler effect proves, explicitly or implicitly, that the speed of light relative to the observer VARIES with the speed of the observer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE
"Doppler effect - when an observer moves towards a stationary source. ...the velocity of the wave relative to the observer is faster than that when it is still."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SC0Q6-xt-Xs
"Doppler effect - when an observer moves away from a stationary source. ...the velocity of the wave relative to the observer is slower than that when it is still."

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.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp06/class19/class19_doppler.html
"Let's say you, the observer, now move toward the source with velocity vO. You encounter more waves per unit time than you did before. Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed: v'=v+vO. The frequency of the waves you detect is higher, and is given by: f'=v'/λ=(v+vO)/λ."

Pentcho Valev

[Pentcho Valev]

Einstein's theory of relativity should be renamed "Theory of idiotic but life-saving length shifts". The ad hoc wavelength shift assumption and the "classical" length contraction are two examples but there is a third, definitely the most idiotic, one. Imagine a situation in which Einstein's relativity can only be saved if an object manages to become longer than itself. Will it become longer than itself? In Einstein schizophrenic world the answer is an unequivocal yes. Consider the bug-rivet paradox:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Relativ/bugrivet.html
"In an attempt to squash a bug in a 1 cm deep hole, a rivet is used. But the rivet is only 0.8 cm long so it cannot reach the bug. The rivet is accelerated to 0.9c. [...] The paradox is not resolved."

In the rivet's frame, "the end of the rivet hits the bottom of the hole before the head of the rivet hits the wall" - the bug is squashed. In the bug's frame, "the rivet head hits the wall when the rivet end is just 0.35 cm down in the hole" - the bug remains alive.

The bug being squashed in the rivet's frame and alive in the bug's frame is fatal for Einstein's relativity. So Einsteinians resort to an idiotic ad hoc "requirement" - the rivet shank gets longer than itself and poor bug is squashed in both frames:

http://math.ucr.edu/~jdp/Relativity/Bug_Rivet.html
Professor John de Pillis: "In fact, special relativity requires that after collision, the rivet shank length increases beyond its at-rest length d."

http://brianclegg.blogspot.fr/2011_11_01_archive.html
Brian Clegg: "Unfortunately, though, the rivet is fired towards the table at a fair percentage of the speed of light. It's somewhat typical of this book that all it tells us about the speed is that γ is 2, which doesn't really give you an idea of how fast the rivet is going, but if my back of an envelope calculations are right, this is around 0.87 times the speed of light. Quite a fast rivet, then. [...] But here's the thing. Just because the head of the rivet has come to a sudden stop doesn't mean the whole rivet does. A wave has to pass along the rivet to its end saying 'Stop!' The end of the rivet will just keep on going until this wave, typically travelling at the speed of sound, reaches it. That fast-moving end will crash into the beetle long before the wave arrives. [...] Isn't physics great?"

Note that, according to Brian Clegg, the end of the rivet keeps on going at 87% the speed of light and a wave travelling at the speed of sound is chasing it in order to stop it! Sane individual this Brian Clegg isn't he?

http://img15.hostingpics.net/pics/863506einsteinformuletableau.jpg

Pentcho Valev

[Pentcho Valev]

The idiocy of the "classical" length contraction: It implies that unlimitedly long objects can gloriously be trapped inside unlimitedly short containers:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/barn_pole.html
John Baez: "These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in the barn. [...] So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. [...] If it does not explode under the strain and it is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be trapped in a compressed state inside the barn."

See, at 7:12 in the video below, how the train is trapped "in a compressed state" inside the tunnel:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xrqj88zQZJg
"Einstein's Relativistic Train in a Tunnel Paradox: Special Relativity"

It is not difficult to realize that trapping long objects inside short containers drastically violates the law of conservation of energy. The trapped object, in trying to restore its original volume ("spring back to its natural shape"), would produce an enormous amount of work the energy for which comes from nowhere. Einsteinians don't care - the more madness in the world, the better.

At 9:01 in the above video Sarah sees the train falling through the hole, and in order to save Einstein's relativity, the authors of the video inform the gullible world that Adam as well sees the train falling through the hole. However Adam can only see this if the train undergoes an absurd disintegration first, as shown at 9:53.

Clearly we have reductio ad absurdum: An absurd disintegration is required - Adam sees it, Sarah doesn't. Conclusion: The underlying premise, Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate, is false.

Pentcho Valev

[Pentcho Valev]

Banesh Hoffmann effectively says that, without recourse to length contraction and other fudge factors ("without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations"), the Michelson-Morley experiment is compatible with the variable speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light and incompatible with the constant (independent of the speed of the emitter) speed of light predicted by the ether theory and adopted by Einstein as his 1905 second postulate:

http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also a natural one? 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. If it was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous."

As far as the Michelson-Morley experiment is concerned, the subtlest practitioner of doublethink finds it profitable to teach the truth:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues that reveal Einstein's serious consideration of an emission theory of light; and he gave us the crucial insight that Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity. Even today, this point needs emphasis. The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that contradicts the light postulate."

Yet there is a lie in the above text. "Later writers" (that is, today's Einsteinians) are "almost universally" cheating (that is correct), but Einstein was honest, according to Stachel and Norton - that is a lie of course. Actually Einstein was the author of the myth that the Michelson-Morley experiment had confirmed the constancy of the speed of light - the following text clearly shows this ("Michelson showed that relative to the moving co-ordinate system K1, the light traveled with the same velocity as relative to K"):

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9806EFDD113FEE3ABC4152DFB266838A639EDE
The New York Times, April 19, 1921: "The special relativity arose from the question of whether light had an invariable velocity in free space, he [Einstein] said. The velocity of light could only be measured relative to a body or a co-ordinate system. He sketched a co-ordinate system K to which light had a velocity C. Whether the system was in motion or not was the fundamental principle. This has been developed through the researches of Maxwell and Lorentz, the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light having been based on many of their experiments. But did it hold for only one system? he asked. He gave the example of a street and a vehicle moving on that street. If the velocity of light was C for the street was it also C for the vehicle? If a second co-ordinate system K was introduced, moving with the velocity V, did light have the velocity of C here? When the light traveled the system moved with it, so it would appear that light moved slower and the principle apparently did not hold. Many famous experiments had been made on this point. Michelson showed that relative to the moving co-ordinate system K1, the light traveled with the same velocity as relative to K, which is contrary to the above observation. How could this be reconciled? Professor Einstein asked."

Pentcho Valev

[Pentcho Valev]

Downright doublethink: According to John Norton, Einstein took the constancy of the speed of light from Maxwell's electromagnetic theory. On the other hand, the same John Norton teaches that Maxwell's electromagnetic theory had predicted that the speed of light varies with the speed of the observer:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/Special_relativity_principles/index.html
John Norton: "Why Einstein should believe the light postulate is a little harder to see. We would expect that a light signal would slow down relative to us if we chase after it. The light postulate says no. No matter how fast an inertial observer is traveling in pursuit of the light signal, that observer will always find the light signal to be traveling at the same speed, c. The principal reason for Einstein's acceptance of the light postulate was his lengthy study of electrodynamics, the theory of electric and magnetic fields. The theory was the most advanced physics of the time. Some 50 years before, Maxwell had shown that light was merely a ripple propagating in an electromagnetic field. Maxwell's theory predicted that the speed of the ripple was a quite definite number: c."

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/Chasing.pdf
John Norton: "That [Maxwell's] theory allows light to slow and be frozen in the frame of reference of a sufficiently rapidly moving observer."

http://thenewsdoctors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/doublethink.jpg

Pentcho Valev