info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
THE SPEED OF LIGHT VARIES WITH THE SPEED OF THE OBSERVER
14 views
Skip to first unread message
Pentcho Valev
Feb 22, 2012, 3:35:46 AM2/22/12
to
It is absolutely obvious to the subtlest practitioners of doublethink
in Einsteiniana that, as the observer starts moving towards the light
source, the wavelength of the light heading towards him automatically
decreases so that the speed of the light (relative to him) can
gloriously remain constant, Divine Einstein, 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)."
Yet naïve people (quite similar to the innocent child from "The
Emperor's New Clothes") often discover that the wavelength of the
light heading towards the observer simply cannot depend on his
movements and therefore it is the speed of light relative to the
observer, not the wavelength, that shifts as the observer starts
moving towards the source:
http://www.usna.edu/Users/physics/mungan/Scholarship/DopplerEffect.pdf
Carl Mungan: "Consider the case where the observer moves toward the
source. In this case, the observer is rushing head-long into the
wavefronts, so that we expect v'>v. In fact, the wave speed is simply
increased by the observer speed, as we can see by jumping into the
observer's frame of reference. Thus, v'=v+v_o=v(1+v_o/v). Finally, the
frequency must increase by exactly the same factor as the wave speed
increased, in order to ensure that L'=L -> v'/f'=v/f. Putting
everything together, we thus have: OBSERVER MOVING TOWARD SOURCE:
L'=L; f'=f(1+v_o/v); v'=v+v_o."
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://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.flashcardmachine.com/waves6.html
"Moving Observer - frequency increases if the moving towards,
decreases if moving away. Wavelength does not change. The actual speed
of the wave does not change but to the observer the speed appears to
change."
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
in Einsteiniana that, as the observer starts moving towards the light
source, the wavelength of the light heading towards him automatically
decreases so that the speed of the light (relative to him) can
gloriously remain constant, Divine Einstein, 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)."
Yet naïve people (quite similar to the innocent child from "The
Emperor's New Clothes") often discover that the wavelength of the
light heading towards the observer simply cannot depend on his
movements and therefore it is the speed of light relative to the
observer, not the wavelength, that shifts as the observer starts
moving towards the source:
http://www.usna.edu/Users/physics/mungan/Scholarship/DopplerEffect.pdf
Carl Mungan: "Consider the case where the observer moves toward the
source. In this case, the observer is rushing head-long into the
wavefronts, so that we expect v'>v. In fact, the wave speed is simply
increased by the observer speed, as we can see by jumping into the
observer's frame of reference. Thus, v'=v+v_o=v(1+v_o/v). Finally, the
frequency must increase by exactly the same factor as the wave speed
increased, in order to ensure that L'=L -> v'/f'=v/f. Putting
everything together, we thus have: OBSERVER MOVING TOWARD SOURCE:
L'=L; f'=f(1+v_o/v); v'=v+v_o."
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://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.flashcardmachine.com/waves6.html
"Moving Observer - frequency increases if the moving towards,
decreases if moving away. Wavelength does not change. The actual speed
of the wave does not change but to the observer the speed appears to
change."
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
Zinnic
Feb 22, 2012, 9:26:05 AM2/22/12
to
On Feb 22, 2:35 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> It is absolutely obvious to the subtlest practitioners of doublethink
> in Einsteiniana that, as the observer starts moving towards the light
> source, the wavelength of the light heading towards him automatically
> decreases so that the speed of the light (relative to him) can
> gloriously remain constant, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in
> relativity relativity relativity:
>
> http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/big_bang/ind...
> It is absolutely obvious to the subtlest practitioners of doublethink
> in Einsteiniana that, as the observer starts moving towards the light
> source, the wavelength of the light heading towards him automatically
> decreases so that the speed of the light (relative to him) can
> gloriously remain constant, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in
> relativity relativity relativity:
>
the above to a third party viewer of the light source and moving
observer?
Surely for the third party the light travels a different distance
between the source and it's moving observer in a correspondingly
different time. That is, there is no change in the frequency,
wavelength and speed of the light being seen by the moving observer.
Does my naive intuition (frame of reference) trump yours?
Zinnic
Don Stockbauer
Feb 22, 2012, 9:46:25 AM2/22/12
to
On Feb 22, 8:26 am, Zinnic <zinnic....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 22, 2:35 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
As the observer starts moving towards the light source, the wavelength
> On Feb 22, 2:35 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
of the light heading towards him automatically decreases so that the
speed of the light (relative to him) can gloriously remain constant.
Yes, that's correct. What's your issue?
Zinnic
Feb 22, 2012, 10:48:14 AM2/22/12
to
frame of reference!
Note that he omits "(relative to him)" in reference to decrease in
wavelength but includes it in reference to light speed.
Pentcho Valev
Feb 22, 2012, 6:19:25 PM2/22/12
to
http://rockpile.phys.virginia.edu/mod04/mod34.pdf
Paul Fendley: "Now let's see what this does to the frequency of the
light. We know that even without special relativity, observers moving
at different velocities measure different frequencies. (This is the
reason the pitch of an ambulance changes as it passes you it doesn't
change if you're on the ambulance). This is called the Doppler shift,
and for small relative velocity v it is easy to show that the
frequency shifts from f to f(1+v/c) (it goes up heading toward you,
down away from you). There are relativistic corrections, but these are
negligible here."
Yes it is very easy to show that the frequency shifts from f to f(1+v/
c):
http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/roger/PHYS10302/lecture18.pdf
Roger Barlow, Professor of Particle Physics: "The Doppler effect -
changes in frequencies when sources or observers are in motion - is
familiar to anyone who has stood at the roadside and watched (and
listened) to the cars go by. It applies to all types of wave, not just
sound. (...) Moving Observer. Now suppose the source is fixed but the
observer is moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/
(lambda) waves pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/
(lambda). So f'=(c+v)/(lambda)."
Clearly the frequency shifts from f to f(1+v/c) because the speed of
the light (relative to the observer) shifts from c to c+v. Both shifts
can be seen on this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EVzUyE2oD1w
"Fermilab physicist, Dr. Ricardo Eusebi, discusses the Doppler effect
and gravitational lensing in respect to Einstein's Theory of General
Relativity"
To Dr. Ricardo Eusebi the speed of light (relative to the observer)
appears to be variable but he pronounces it to be constant. So would
do any true Einsteinian:
Ignatius of Loyola: "That we may be altogether of the same mind and in
conformity with the Church herself, if she shall have defined anything
to be black which appears to our eyes to be white, we ought in like
manner to pronounce it to be black."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Paul Fendley: "Now let's see what this does to the frequency of the
light. We know that even without special relativity, observers moving
at different velocities measure different frequencies. (This is the
reason the pitch of an ambulance changes as it passes you it doesn't
change if you're on the ambulance). This is called the Doppler shift,
and for small relative velocity v it is easy to show that the
frequency shifts from f to f(1+v/c) (it goes up heading toward you,
down away from you). There are relativistic corrections, but these are
negligible here."
Yes it is very easy to show that the frequency shifts from f to f(1+v/
c):
http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/roger/PHYS10302/lecture18.pdf
Roger Barlow, Professor of Particle Physics: "The Doppler effect -
changes in frequencies when sources or observers are in motion - is
familiar to anyone who has stood at the roadside and watched (and
listened) to the cars go by. It applies to all types of wave, not just
sound. (...) Moving Observer. Now suppose the source is fixed but the
observer is moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/
(lambda) waves pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/
(lambda). So f'=(c+v)/(lambda)."
Clearly the frequency shifts from f to f(1+v/c) because the speed of
the light (relative to the observer) shifts from c to c+v. Both shifts
can be seen on this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EVzUyE2oD1w
"Fermilab physicist, Dr. Ricardo Eusebi, discusses the Doppler effect
and gravitational lensing in respect to Einstein's Theory of General
Relativity"
To Dr. Ricardo Eusebi the speed of light (relative to the observer)
appears to be variable but he pronounces it to be constant. So would
do any true Einsteinian:
Ignatius of Loyola: "That we may be altogether of the same mind and in
conformity with the Church herself, if she shall have defined anything
to be black which appears to our eyes to be white, we ought in like
manner to pronounce it to be black."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
micro...@hotmail.com
Feb 22, 2012, 6:33:55 PM2/22/12
to
same space at different speeds. That would create a differential in
their speeds when taken together as one system. Einstein called this
his Closing Velocity Addendum to his 1905 paper. That addendum can now
be argued better than Relativity itself...
Mitchell Raemsch
Pentcho Valev
Feb 23, 2012, 3:19:52 AM2/23/12
to
Einsteinians look at the speed of the wave (relative to the observer)
varying with the speed of the observer and the wavelength remaining
the same, but see the wavelength varying with the speed of the
observer and the speed remaining the same. A student who wants to
become a physicist should learn to obey this white-is-black principle
introduced by Ignatius of Loyola:
http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/olcweb/cgi/pluginpop.cgi?it=swf::800::600::/sites/dl/free/0072482621/78778/Doppler_Nav.swf
"INTRODUCTION: Our ears detect changes in the frequency of sound waves
due to the Doppler shift, but the waves change in another way, too: in
their wavelength. Wavelength and frequency are closely related: if one
increases, the other decreases. Their product, the speed of the wave,
remains the same. The spaceship in this interactive has an instrument
which detects electromagnetic radiation. You can see the wavelength
and frequency change as the ship and the source of radiation move
through space. EXERCISES: 2. Now click on the "Observer Approaches"
button. The ship will start flying towards the source. What is the
wavelength of the waves now, as the ship approaches the source? Does
the frequency increase or decrease? SOLUTIONS: 2. The wavelength
shrinks so that about three waves now fit within the graph. (...) The
frequency increases."
varying with the speed of the observer and the wavelength remaining
the same, but see the wavelength varying with the speed of the
observer and the speed remaining the same. A student who wants to
become a physicist should learn to obey this white-is-black principle
introduced by Ignatius of Loyola:
http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/olcweb/cgi/pluginpop.cgi?it=swf::800::600::/sites/dl/free/0072482621/78778/Doppler_Nav.swf
"INTRODUCTION: Our ears detect changes in the frequency of sound waves
due to the Doppler shift, but the waves change in another way, too: in
their wavelength. Wavelength and frequency are closely related: if one
increases, the other decreases. Their product, the speed of the wave,
remains the same. The spaceship in this interactive has an instrument
which detects electromagnetic radiation. You can see the wavelength
and frequency change as the ship and the source of radiation move
through space. EXERCISES: 2. Now click on the "Observer Approaches"
button. The ship will start flying towards the source. What is the
wavelength of the waves now, as the ship approaches the source? Does
the frequency increase or decrease? SOLUTIONS: 2. The wavelength
shrinks so that about three waves now fit within the graph. (...) The
frequency increases."
Pentcho Valev
Feb 24, 2012, 4:07:55 AM2/24/12
to
To Tony Harker, University College London, the speed of the wave
(relative to the observer) appears to vary with the speed of the
observer and the wavelength to be independent of the movements of the
observer. Accordingly, he considers the speed of the wave as varying
with the speed of the observer and the wavelength as independent of
the movements of the observer, in disobedience to the white-is-black
principle advanced by Ignatius of Loyola and adopted in Einsteiniana:
http://www.cmmp.ucl.ac.uk/~ahh/teaching/1B24n/lect19.pdf
Tony Harker, University College London: "The Doppler Effect: Moving
sources and receivers. The phenomena which occur when a source of
sound is in motion are well known. The example which is usually cited
is the change in pitch of the engine of a moving vehicle as it
approaches. In our treatment we shall not specify the type of wave
motion involved, and our results will be applicable to sound and
light. (...) Now suppose that the observer is moving with a velocity
Vo away from the source. We can tackle this case directly in the same
way as we treated the moving source. If the observer moves with a
speed Vo away from the source (...), then in a time t the number of
waves which reach the observer are those in a distance ct-Vo*t, so the
number of waves observed is (ct-Vo*t)/lambda, giving an observed
frequency f'=f((c-Vo)/c) when the observer is moving away from the
source at a speed Vo."
Ignatius of Loyola: "That we may be altogether of the same mind and in
conformity with the Church herself, if she shall have defined anything
to be black which appears to our eyes to be white, we ought in like
manner to pronounce it to be black."
Einsteiniana's zombies looking for Tony Harker to have a frank and
final conversation with him:
http://game2gether.de/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/wall1-1280x1024-1024x819.jpg
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
(relative to the observer) appears to vary with the speed of the
observer and the wavelength to be independent of the movements of the
observer. Accordingly, he considers the speed of the wave as varying
with the speed of the observer and the wavelength as independent of
the movements of the observer, in disobedience to the white-is-black
principle advanced by Ignatius of Loyola and adopted in Einsteiniana:
http://www.cmmp.ucl.ac.uk/~ahh/teaching/1B24n/lect19.pdf
Tony Harker, University College London: "The Doppler Effect: Moving
sources and receivers. The phenomena which occur when a source of
sound is in motion are well known. The example which is usually cited
is the change in pitch of the engine of a moving vehicle as it
approaches. In our treatment we shall not specify the type of wave
motion involved, and our results will be applicable to sound and
light. (...) Now suppose that the observer is moving with a velocity
Vo away from the source. We can tackle this case directly in the same
way as we treated the moving source. If the observer moves with a
speed Vo away from the source (...), then in a time t the number of
waves which reach the observer are those in a distance ct-Vo*t, so the
number of waves observed is (ct-Vo*t)/lambda, giving an observed
frequency f'=f((c-Vo)/c) when the observer is moving away from the
source at a speed Vo."
Ignatius of Loyola: "That we may be altogether of the same mind and in
conformity with the Church herself, if she shall have defined anything
to be black which appears to our eyes to be white, we ought in like
manner to pronounce it to be black."
final conversation with him:
http://game2gether.de/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/wall1-1280x1024-1024x819.jpg
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
G=EMC^2
Feb 24, 2012, 5:10:04 AM2/24/12
to
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com
Photons never change speed. Photons never bounce. TreBert
micro...@hotmail.com
Feb 24, 2012, 3:50:19 PM2/24/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
Einstein's Closing Velocity Addendum is better than Relativity
itself...
Mitchell Raemsch
Pentcho Valev
Feb 27, 2012, 6:19:48 AM2/27/12
to
http://www-physics.ucsd.edu/students/courses/spring2010/physics1ca/documents/2.2Beats.DopplerShift_001.pdf
UCSD: "Doppler effect. Two different cases: Observer moving - Relative
velocity changes; Source moving - Wavelength changes. Observer moving
toward a Stationary source: RELATIVE VELOCITY OF WAVE (Vo+V)
INCREASES; Frequency increases. Fo= (V+Vo)/Ls = ((V+Vo)/V)Fs = (1+Vo/
V)Fs. (.....) Doppler shift of electromagnetic waves: Electromagnetic
waves are also shifted by the Doppler effect. Since EM waves travel in
a vacuum the equations governing the shift are different. The same
shift is observed for moving source or moving observer. For motion
with speeds less than the speed of light the relation is the same as
for the approximate shift for sound waves when v>>u. F = Fs(1±u/c). u
= relative velocity of source and observer; c = speed of light
=3.00x108 m/s; Positive sign when approaching; Negative sign when
moving away."
QUESTION: For any waves other than light waves, the relative speed of
the observer and the wave increases (Vo+V) when the observer starts
moving towards the source. For light waves the relative speed remains
the same, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity relativity
relativity, but then why does the frequency increase in EXACT
conformity with (Vo+V)?
ANSWER: The speed of light is constant by definition, Divine Einstein,
Steve Carlip: "Is c, the speed of light in vacuum, constant? At the
1983 Conference Generale des Poids et Mesures, the following SI
(Systeme International) definition of the metre was adopted: The metre
is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time
interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second. This defines the speed of light
in vacuum to be exactly 299,792,458 m/s. This provides a very short
answer to the question "Is c constant": Yes, c is CONSTANT BY
DEFINITION!"
http://www.haverford.edu/physics/songs/divine.htm
DIVINE EINSTEIN: No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein not Maxwell,
Curie, or Bo-o-ohr!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ
We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Yes we all
believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. We all live in an
expanding universe, expanding universe, expanding universe. Yes we all
live in an expanding universe, expanding universe, expanding universe.
We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Yes we all
believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
UCSD: "Doppler effect. Two different cases: Observer moving - Relative
velocity changes; Source moving - Wavelength changes. Observer moving
toward a Stationary source: RELATIVE VELOCITY OF WAVE (Vo+V)
INCREASES; Frequency increases. Fo= (V+Vo)/Ls = ((V+Vo)/V)Fs = (1+Vo/
V)Fs. (.....) Doppler shift of electromagnetic waves: Electromagnetic
waves are also shifted by the Doppler effect. Since EM waves travel in
a vacuum the equations governing the shift are different. The same
shift is observed for moving source or moving observer. For motion
with speeds less than the speed of light the relation is the same as
for the approximate shift for sound waves when v>>u. F = Fs(1±u/c). u
= relative velocity of source and observer; c = speed of light
=3.00x108 m/s; Positive sign when approaching; Negative sign when
moving away."
QUESTION: For any waves other than light waves, the relative speed of
the observer and the wave increases (Vo+V) when the observer starts
moving towards the source. For light waves the relative speed remains
the same, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity relativity
relativity, but then why does the frequency increase in EXACT
conformity with (Vo+V)?
ANSWER: The speed of light is constant by definition, Divine Einstein,
yes we all believe in relativity relativity relativity:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html
Steve Carlip: "Is c, the speed of light in vacuum, constant? At the
1983 Conference Generale des Poids et Mesures, the following SI
(Systeme International) definition of the metre was adopted: The metre
is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time
interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second. This defines the speed of light
in vacuum to be exactly 299,792,458 m/s. This provides a very short
answer to the question "Is c constant": Yes, c is CONSTANT BY
DEFINITION!"
http://www.haverford.edu/physics/songs/divine.htm
DIVINE EINSTEIN: No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein not Maxwell,
Curie, or Bo-o-ohr!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ
We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Yes we all
believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. We all live in an
expanding universe, expanding universe, expanding universe. Yes we all
live in an expanding universe, expanding universe, expanding universe.
We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Yes we all
believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
Feb 27, 2012, 7:00:51 PM2/27/12
to
http://www.phys.ufl.edu/~rfield/PHY3063/images/Chapter1_17.pdf
Richard Field, University of Florida: "Relativistic Doppler Shift
(observer moving away). Consider a light source at rest in the O-frame
shinning its light in the x direction. Since the O-frame is at rest
with the source of light F=Fo, L=Lo, and T=To, where Fo, Lo, and To
are the "proper frequency", "proper wavelength", and "proper period"
of the light. The wavefronts travel at speed c and (in the O-frame)
the time between emitted wavefronts is To and the distance between
emitted wavefronts is Lo. Hence Lo=cTo... (.....) L_obs = cT_obs =
(.....)"
The last formula is wrong - it implicitly presupposes that the motion
of the observer, unlike the motion of other observers observing other
waves, somehow changes the wavelength of the light wave heading
towards him so that the speed of the wave (relative to him) can
gloriously remain constant, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in
relativity relativity relativity. In fact, L_obs, the wavelength of
the light reaching the observer, has not changed:
L_obs = Lo = cTo = (c-V)(delta t)
That is, the speed of the light relative to the observer is c-V. Why
do you believe in relativity relativity relativity, Einsteinians?
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Richard Field, University of Florida: "Relativistic Doppler Shift
(observer moving away). Consider a light source at rest in the O-frame
shinning its light in the x direction. Since the O-frame is at rest
with the source of light F=Fo, L=Lo, and T=To, where Fo, Lo, and To
are the "proper frequency", "proper wavelength", and "proper period"
of the light. The wavefronts travel at speed c and (in the O-frame)
the time between emitted wavefronts is To and the distance between
emitted wavefronts is Lo. Hence Lo=cTo... (.....) L_obs = cT_obs =
(.....)"
The last formula is wrong - it implicitly presupposes that the motion
of the observer, unlike the motion of other observers observing other
waves, somehow changes the wavelength of the light wave heading
towards him so that the speed of the wave (relative to him) can
gloriously remain constant, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in
relativity relativity relativity. In fact, L_obs, the wavelength of
the light reaching the observer, has not changed:
L_obs = Lo = cTo = (c-V)(delta t)
That is, the speed of the light relative to the observer is c-V. Why
do you believe in relativity relativity relativity, Einsteinians?
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
underante
Feb 29, 2012, 8:19:35 PM2/29/12
to
examples you give of where authors have gotten themselves in a pickle,
instead of using lorentz transforms to analyse the problem, they have
preferred instead to use their own home-grown arguments, with sad
result, which all begs the question as to whether you do have any
examples in your collection where the author _has_ used lorentz
transforms, and failed?
micro...@hotmail.com
Feb 29, 2012, 8:41:39 PM2/29/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
Matter and light move through the same space at different speeds.
> - Show quoted text -
Matter can move in the same direction but light's movement will be
slower in the distance ahead. Closing Velocity reveals this.
Mitchell Raemsch; the prize
Pentcho Valev
Mar 3, 2012, 2:15:18 AM3/3/12
to
The subtlest practitioner of doublethink in Einsteiniana:
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/lectures/Tsinghua/Tsinghua.html
John Norton: "The first is Einstein's famous "chasing a light beam" thought experiment that provided his first step towards the special theory of relativity. If read as presented, the thought experiment it obscure. It is unclear just how Einstein arrives at the various outcomes claimed. A small minority of later authors have admitted its unintelligibility. Most, however, do not. They pretend that they understand it, with the unfortunate consequence that hapless readers are left doubly baffled by their failure to follow Einstein's account and that of the commentator as well! There is, however, a way to make sense of Einstein's thought experiment. The mistake is to analyze the thought experiment in the context of ether theories of light. If instead we read the thought experiment in the context of emission theories of light, it becomes quite transparent. It turns out to implement many of the objections Einstein later recalled against emission theories of light."
That is, Einsteiniana destroys human rationality by fiercely teaching the silly "chasing a light beam" thought experiment but this experiment is still extremely valuable because it undermines Newton's emission theory of light, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/big_bang/index.html
http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17.html
George Orwell: "Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. (...) 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. (...) 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
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/lectures/Tsinghua/Tsinghua.html
John Norton: "The first is Einstein's famous "chasing a light beam" thought experiment that provided his first step towards the special theory of relativity. If read as presented, the thought experiment it obscure. It is unclear just how Einstein arrives at the various outcomes claimed. A small minority of later authors have admitted its unintelligibility. Most, however, do not. They pretend that they understand it, with the unfortunate consequence that hapless readers are left doubly baffled by their failure to follow Einstein's account and that of the commentator as well! There is, however, a way to make sense of Einstein's thought experiment. The mistake is to analyze the thought experiment in the context of ether theories of light. If instead we read the thought experiment in the context of emission theories of light, it becomes quite transparent. It turns out to implement many of the objections Einstein later recalled against emission theories of light."
That is, Einsteiniana destroys human rationality by fiercely teaching the silly "chasing a light beam" thought experiment but this experiment is still extremely valuable because it undermines Newton's emission theory of light, Divine Einstein, 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)."
That is, the observer passes wavecrests more frequently but this does not mean that the speed of the wavecrests relative to him has increased (as is the case with all other waves). Rather, the wavelength has somehow decreased so that the speed of the wavecrests relative to the observer has remained unchanged in an incredibly glorious way, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.
http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17.html
George Orwell: "Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. (...) 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. (...) 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
Alfonso
Mar 5, 2012, 11:19:18 AM3/5/12
to
they were derived by Lorentz as being the effect on measurement of
instruments travelling through the aether in accordance with Maxwell's
aether theory. The effect on clocks and rulers is such that the
_measured_ speed of light is always a constant while the true speed of
light varies with an observers speed w.r.t the aether. If you change
your speed w.r.t the aether, the frequency changes, confirmation that
the true speed of light varies with the speed of the observer - if not
then what other explanation is there?
Around 1920 a new, extreme philosophy was introduced as the basis of
physics, and is now current. It said that reality is beyond the human
mind and a mathematical description must be accepted as a complete
description of a system. It also denied the idea that an affect is
preceded by cause or that the two are linked by some physical process.
Under this new philosophy it is wrong to speculate as to causes and what
might be physically involved and that is how the aether was purged from
physics. Physics became mathematical modelling. Maxwell's aether theory
became Maxwell's equations and Lorentz's mathematical relationships were
accepted without any accompanying physical theory - the credit going to
Albert. This was somewhat ironic as Einstein objected to many of the
interpretations resulting from the new philosophy and yet his theory
would have been unacceptable under Classic Philosophy.
The new philosophy accepts maths as being a "physical theory" and
predictions of the maths as being "physical cause". While maths has its
own discipline it is not constrained by reality. There is nothing in the
discipline of maths to prevent time going backwards, extra dimensions,
parallel universes, negative mass or anything else it fancies. As the
doctrine denies that reality is accessible to the human mind reality is
barred from putting restrictions on what the maths says. That is why
Schrödinger's cat has to be accepted as being both alive and dead. Why
an electron is not allowed to have a definite, but unknown position and
why infinite parallel universes are required to explain why an electron
ends up at a unique point - it doesn't! - it arrives at every possible
point allowed by the maths in some universe and just happens to arrive
at that point in ours.
It may be physics but is it science?
Alfonso.
0 new messages