info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
HOW EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY KILLED OFF SANE SCIENCE
145 views
Skip to first unread message
Pentcho Valev
Nov 29, 2015, 8:05:24 PM11/29/15
to
http://theconversation.com/how-einsteins-general-theory-of-relativity-killed-off-common-sense-physics-50042
"At the center of Einstein's theories is the fact that the speed of light is independent of the motion of the observer who is measuring the speed. This is strange, because common sense suggests that if you sit in your car alongside a railroad track, a train passing by will seem to be moving much faster than if you followed it in the same direction. However, if you instead sit and watch a light beam go by, it would move equally fast regardless of whether you were following it or not – a clear indication that something is wrong with common sense."
No, "the fact that the speed of light is independent of the motion of the observer" is absurd. Any reasonable interpretation of the Doppler effect (moving observer) shows that the speed of light is different for differently moving observers:
http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp06/class19/class19_doppler.html
Professor Sidney Redner: "The Doppler effect is the shift in frequency of a wave that occurs when the wave source, or the detector of the wave, is moving. Applications of the Doppler effect range from medical tests using ultrasound to radar detectors and astronomy (with electromagnetic waves). (...) We will focus on sound waves in describing the Doppler effect, but it works for other waves too. (...) 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."
"Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed" = Goodbye Einstein!
http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/roger/PHYS10302/lecture18.pdf
Professor Roger Barlow: "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/λ waves pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/λ. So f'=(c+v)/λ."
That is, for all types of wave, the speed of the waves relative to the fixed point (observer) is
(ct/λ)(λ/t) = c
The speed of the waves relative to the moving point (observer) is
(ct/λ + vt/λ)(λ/t) = c + v,
in violation of Einstein's relativity.
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."
If the distance between subsequent pulses is d and "the time it takes the source to emit three pulses" is t, then the speed of the pulses relative to the source is
3d/t = c,
and relative to the moving receiver is
4d/t = (4/3)c,
in violation of Einstein's relativity.
Pentcho Valev
"At the center of Einstein's theories is the fact that the speed of light is independent of the motion of the observer who is measuring the speed. This is strange, because common sense suggests that if you sit in your car alongside a railroad track, a train passing by will seem to be moving much faster than if you followed it in the same direction. However, if you instead sit and watch a light beam go by, it would move equally fast regardless of whether you were following it or not – a clear indication that something is wrong with common sense."
No, "the fact that the speed of light is independent of the motion of the observer" is absurd. Any reasonable interpretation of the Doppler effect (moving observer) shows that the speed of light is different for differently moving observers:
http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp06/class19/class19_doppler.html
Professor Sidney Redner: "The Doppler effect is the shift in frequency of a wave that occurs when the wave source, or the detector of the wave, is moving. Applications of the Doppler effect range from medical tests using ultrasound to radar detectors and astronomy (with electromagnetic waves). (...) We will focus on sound waves in describing the Doppler effect, but it works for other waves too. (...) 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."
"Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed" = Goodbye Einstein!
http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/roger/PHYS10302/lecture18.pdf
Professor Roger Barlow: "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/λ waves pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/λ. So f'=(c+v)/λ."
That is, for all types of wave, the speed of the waves relative to the fixed point (observer) is
(ct/λ)(λ/t) = c
The speed of the waves relative to the moving point (observer) is
(ct/λ + vt/λ)(λ/t) = c + v,
in violation of Einstein's relativity.
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."
If the distance between subsequent pulses is d and "the time it takes the source to emit three pulses" is t, then the speed of the pulses relative to the source is
3d/t = c,
and relative to the moving receiver is
4d/t = (4/3)c,
in violation of Einstein's relativity.
Pentcho Valev
Gary Harnagel
Nov 29, 2015, 9:50:23 PM11/29/15
to
On Sunday, November 29, 2015 at 6:05:24 PM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> http://theconversation.com/how-einsteins-general-theory-of-relativity-killed-off-common-sense-physics-50042
> "At the center of Einstein's theories is the fact that the speed of light
> is independent of the motion of the observer who is measuring the speed.
> This is strange, because common sense suggests that if you sit in your car
> alongside a railroad track, a train passing by will seem to be moving much
> faster than if you followed it in the same direction. However, if you
> instead sit and watch a light beam go by, it would move equally fast
> regardless of whether you were following it or not - a clear indication
>
> http://theconversation.com/how-einsteins-general-theory-of-relativity-killed-off-common-sense-physics-50042
> "At the center of Einstein's theories is the fact that the speed of light
> is independent of the motion of the observer who is measuring the speed.
> This is strange, because common sense suggests that if you sit in your car
> alongside a railroad track, a train passing by will seem to be moving much
> faster than if you followed it in the same direction. However, if you
> instead sit and watch a light beam go by, it would move equally fast
> that something is wrong with common sense."
>
> No, "the fact that the speed of light is independent of the motion of the
> observer" is absurd.
Irrelevant. "Absurd" is about human perception and has nothing to with
>
> No, "the fact that the speed of light is independent of the motion of the
> observer" is absurd.
reality.
> Any reasonable interpretation of the Doppler effect (moving observer) shows
> that the speed of light is different for differently moving observers:
reality. Pentcho is pontificating from his rubber room and his "judgment"
has nothing to do with the real world.
> That is, for all types of wave,
Gary
mlwo...@wp.pl
Nov 30, 2015, 2:33:04 AM11/30/15
to
W dniu poniedziałek, 30 listopada 2015 03:50:23 UTC+1 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał:
> "Reasonable" is also about human judgment and has nothing to do with
> reality.
"Stupid" is also a human judgment, and it's relation
> "Reasonable" is also about human judgment and has nothing to do with
> reality.
to the "reasonable" judgment is very simple:
"stupid"<=>not("reasonable").
Of course, reality doesn't care, whether you are
reasonable or stupid. It's just - if you prefer
stupidity, other humans will judge you and laugh
at you. That's how human judgments work.
Gary Harnagel
Nov 30, 2015, 8:26:31 AM11/30/15
to
then YOU are stupid.
mlwo...@wp.pl
Nov 30, 2015, 8:57:34 AM11/30/15
to
Besides, it doesn't matter, whether you care or not.
You think, that studying The Shit has put you far
above puny humans and their puny judgments. As
expected from a relativistic moron. You're wrong.
As expected from a relativistic moron.
JanPB
Nov 30, 2015, 3:08:51 PM11/30/15
to
On Sunday, November 29, 2015 at 5:05:24 PM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> http://theconversation.com/how-einsteins-general-theory-of-relativity-killed-off-common-sense-physics-50042
> "At the center of Einstein's theories is the fact that the speed of light is independent of the motion of the observer who is measuring the speed. This is strange, because common sense suggests that if you sit in your car alongside a railroad track, a train passing by will seem to be moving much faster than if you followed it in the same direction. However, if you instead sit and watch a light beam go by, it would move equally fast regardless of whether you were following it or not – a clear indication that something is wrong with common sense."
>
> No, "the fact that the speed of light is independent of the motion of the observer" is absurd.
It's not "absurd". The theory defines "time" in a certain new way which makes
> http://theconversation.com/how-einsteins-general-theory-of-relativity-killed-off-common-sense-physics-50042
> "At the center of Einstein's theories is the fact that the speed of light is independent of the motion of the observer who is measuring the speed. This is strange, because common sense suggests that if you sit in your car alongside a railroad track, a train passing by will seem to be moving much faster than if you followed it in the same direction. However, if you instead sit and watch a light beam go by, it would move equally fast regardless of whether you were following it or not – a clear indication that something is wrong with common sense."
>
> No, "the fact that the speed of light is independent of the motion of the observer" is absurd.
the above statement consistent.
If you don't like that new definition of time - fine with me. To each his own.
Just don't say nonsense like "the fact that the speed of light is independent
of the motion of the observer is absurd", because it isn't. The only thing
you can honestly say is "I find it philosophically objectionable" or
something similar.
> Any reasonable interpretation of the Doppler effect (moving observer) shows that the speed of light is different for differently moving observers:
It leads you nowhere.
> http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp06/class19/class19_doppler.html
> Professor Sidney Redner: "The Doppler effect is the shift in frequency of a wave that occurs when the wave source, or the detector of the wave, is moving. Applications of the Doppler effect range from medical tests using ultrasound to radar detectors and astronomy (with electromagnetic waves). (...) We will focus on sound waves in describing the Doppler effect, but it works for other waves too. (...) 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."
>
> "Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed" = Goodbye Einstein!
Friendly advice: forget any notion of "goodbye Einstein!". It will save you
time and aggravation.
The rest of your "argument" is not even worth addressing at this point.
--
Jan
Dirk Van de moortel
Nov 30, 2015, 3:12:53 PM11/30/15
to
Op 30-nov-2015 om 21:08 schreef JanPB:
decades. You will have to learn to live with that. He has too :-)
Dirk Vdm
> On Sunday, November 29, 2015 at 5:05:24 PM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev
> wrote:
>> http://theconversation.com/how-einsteins-general-theory-of-relativity-killed-off-common-sense-physics-50042
>>
>>
"At the center of Einstein's theories is the fact that the speed of
light is independent of the motion of the observer who is measuring the
speed. This is strange, because common sense suggests that if you sit in
your car alongside a railroad track, a train passing by will seem to be
moving much faster than if you followed it in the same direction.
However, if you instead sit and watch a light beam go by, it would move
equally fast regardless of whether you were following it or not – a
clear indication that something is wrong with common sense."
>>
>> No, "the fact that the speed of light is independent of the motion
>> of the observer" is absurd.
>
> It's not "absurd". The theory defines "time" in a certain new way
> which makes the above statement consistent.
>
> If you don't like that new definition of time - fine with me. To each
> his own. Just don't say nonsense like "the fact that the speed of
> light is independent of the motion of the observer is absurd",
> because it isn't. The only thing you can honestly say is "I find it
> philosophically objectionable" or something similar.
Yet Pentcho Valev has been honestly saying that it is absurd for
> wrote:
>> http://theconversation.com/how-einsteins-general-theory-of-relativity-killed-off-common-sense-physics-50042
>>
>>
"At the center of Einstein's theories is the fact that the speed of
light is independent of the motion of the observer who is measuring the
speed. This is strange, because common sense suggests that if you sit in
your car alongside a railroad track, a train passing by will seem to be
moving much faster than if you followed it in the same direction.
However, if you instead sit and watch a light beam go by, it would move
equally fast regardless of whether you were following it or not – a
clear indication that something is wrong with common sense."
>>
>> No, "the fact that the speed of light is independent of the motion
>> of the observer" is absurd.
>
> It's not "absurd". The theory defines "time" in a certain new way
> which makes the above statement consistent.
>
> If you don't like that new definition of time - fine with me. To each
> his own. Just don't say nonsense like "the fact that the speed of
> light is independent of the motion of the observer is absurd",
> because it isn't. The only thing you can honestly say is "I find it
> philosophically objectionable" or something similar.
decades. You will have to learn to live with that. He has too :-)
Dirk Vdm
Maciej Woźniak
Nov 30, 2015, 3:15:39 PM11/30/15
to
Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:e4fd2e1a-ff47-4d64...@googlegroups.com...
> No, "the fact that the speed of light is independent of the motion of the
> observer" is absurd.
|It's not "absurd". The theory defines "time" in a certain new way which
makes
makes....
Still, it is absurd.
|If you don't like that new definition of time - fine with me. To each his
own.
|Just don't say nonsense like "the fact that the speed of light is
independent
|of the motion of the observer is absurd", because it isn't.
|The only thing you can honestly say is
honesty.
JanPB
Nov 30, 2015, 3:38:50 PM11/30/15
to
On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 12:12:53 PM UTC-8, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> Op 30-nov-2015 om 21:08 schreef JanPB:
> > On Sunday, November 29, 2015 at 5:05:24 PM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev
> > wrote:
> >> http://theconversation.com/how-einsteins-general-theory-of-relativity-killed-off-common-sense-physics-50042
> >>
> >>
> "At the center of Einstein's theories is the fact that the speed of
> light is independent of the motion of the observer who is measuring the
> speed. This is strange, because common sense suggests that if you sit in
> your car alongside a railroad track, a train passing by will seem to be
> moving much faster than if you followed it in the same direction.
> However, if you instead sit and watch a light beam go by, it would move
> equally fast regardless of whether you were following it or not - a
> Op 30-nov-2015 om 21:08 schreef JanPB:
> > On Sunday, November 29, 2015 at 5:05:24 PM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev
> > wrote:
> >> http://theconversation.com/how-einsteins-general-theory-of-relativity-killed-off-common-sense-physics-50042
> >>
> >>
> "At the center of Einstein's theories is the fact that the speed of
> light is independent of the motion of the observer who is measuring the
> speed. This is strange, because common sense suggests that if you sit in
> your car alongside a railroad track, a train passing by will seem to be
> moving much faster than if you followed it in the same direction.
> However, if you instead sit and watch a light beam go by, it would move
> clear indication that something is wrong with common sense."
> >>
> >> No, "the fact that the speed of light is independent of the motion
> >> of the observer" is absurd.
> >
> > It's not "absurd". The theory defines "time" in a certain new way
> > which makes the above statement consistent.
> >
> > If you don't like that new definition of time - fine with me. To each
> > his own. Just don't say nonsense like "the fact that the speed of
> > light is independent of the motion of the observer is absurd",
> > because it isn't. The only thing you can honestly say is "I find it
> > philosophically objectionable" or something similar.
>
> Yet Pentcho Valev has been honestly saying that it is absurd for
> decades. You will have to learn to live with that. He has too :-)
>
> Dirk Vdm
Yes, I know :-) I've been here since before Pentcho discovered relativity.
> >>
> >> No, "the fact that the speed of light is independent of the motion
> >> of the observer" is absurd.
> >
> > It's not "absurd". The theory defines "time" in a certain new way
> > which makes the above statement consistent.
> >
> > If you don't like that new definition of time - fine with me. To each
> > his own. Just don't say nonsense like "the fact that the speed of
> > light is independent of the motion of the observer is absurd",
> > because it isn't. The only thing you can honestly say is "I find it
> > philosophically objectionable" or something similar.
>
> Yet Pentcho Valev has been honestly saying that it is absurd for
> decades. You will have to learn to live with that. He has too :-)
>
> Dirk Vdm
Is he still beating thermodynamics or has he given up on that?
--
Jan
Carl Heinz Krüger
Nov 30, 2015, 3:42:54 PM11/30/15
to
суббота., Mon, 30 Nov 2015 12:38:46 -0800 пользователь JanPB написал:
> Yes, I know I've been here since before Pentcho discovered relativity.
never gets tired, the curvature of space and time remains constant along
centuries. If I'm not very mistaken spacetime curvature would remain
unaffected in spite of increasing disorder. Hence yes, Pentcho is right
again.
> Yes, I know I've been here since before Pentcho discovered relativity.
> Is he still beating thermodynamics or has he given up on that?
There is no Entropy in Relativity, the speed of light does not ages or
never gets tired, the curvature of space and time remains constant along
centuries. If I'm not very mistaken spacetime curvature would remain
unaffected in spite of increasing disorder. Hence yes, Pentcho is right
again.
JanPB
Nov 30, 2015, 3:43:12 PM11/30/15
to
On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 12:15:39 PM UTC-8, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:e4fd2e1a-ff47-4d64...@googlegroups.com...
>
> > No, "the fact that the speed of light is independent of the motion of the
> > observer" is absurd.
>
> |It's not "absurd". The theory defines "time" in a certain new way which
> makes
>
> Samely, the theory of six-leg cat defines a cat in a certain way which
> makes....
You missed the point.
> Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:e4fd2e1a-ff47-4d64...@googlegroups.com...
>
> > No, "the fact that the speed of light is independent of the motion of the
> > observer" is absurd.
>
> |It's not "absurd". The theory defines "time" in a certain new way which
> makes
>
> Samely, the theory of six-leg cat defines a cat in a certain way which
> makes....
> Still, it is absurd.
Nope. You misunderstood my post.
> |If you don't like that new definition of time - fine with me. To each his
> own.
> |Just don't say nonsense like "the fact that the speed of light is
> independent
> |of the motion of the observer is absurd", because it isn't.
>
> Yes, poor idiot, it is.
here "self-contradictory". If you mean something else by "absurd", let
everyone know so we can save time and not argue about mere words.)
>
> |The only thing you can honestly say is
>
> No, poor idiot, you know nothing about saying and nothing about
> honesty.
Oh, and cut "poor idiot" and similar language. It only underscores the
> |The only thing you can honestly say is
>
> No, poor idiot, you know nothing about saying and nothing about
> honesty.
fact that you have no arguments.
--
Jan
JanPB
Nov 30, 2015, 3:44:39 PM11/30/15
to
--
Jan
Carl Heinz Krüger
Nov 30, 2015, 3:51:55 PM11/30/15
to
суббота., Mon, 30 Nov 2015 12:44:35 -0800 пользователь JanPB написал:
>> There is no Entropy in Relativity, the speed of light does not ages or
>> never gets tired, the curvature of space and time remains constant
>> along centuries. If I'm not very mistaken spacetime curvature would
>> remain unaffected in spite of increasing disorder. Hence yes, Pentcho
>> is right again.
>
> Read the posts before you answer them.
This must be ironical, as you didn't read mine.
>> There is no Entropy in Relativity, the speed of light does not ages or
>> never gets tired, the curvature of space and time remains constant
>> along centuries. If I'm not very mistaken spacetime curvature would
>> remain unaffected in spite of increasing disorder. Hence yes, Pentcho
>> is right again.
>
> Read the posts before you answer them.
JanPB
Nov 30, 2015, 3:54:35 PM11/30/15
to
read what I wrote. QED.
--
Jan
Maciej Woźniak
Nov 30, 2015, 4:09:12 PM11/30/15
to
Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup
|Nope. A counterexample exists, hence it's not absurd. (By "absurd" I mean
|here "self-contradictory".
and observations confirm, that it has.
And those, who say that it's absurd to claim, that
cat has six legs, are not even wrong, aren't they?
No, they aren't. You just don't know, what "absurd"
is. As expected from a relativistic moron.
JanPB
Nov 30, 2015, 5:36:47 PM11/30/15
to
On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 1:09:12 PM UTC-8, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:c50b69e4-3ba7-4371...@googlegroups.com...
>
> |Nope. A counterexample exists, hence it's not absurd. (By "absurd" I mean
> |here "self-contradictory".
>
> Samely, for "cat" I mean "ant", so, cat has 6 legs,
Irrelevant. The point I made was that Pentcho called "absurd" something
> Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:c50b69e4-3ba7-4371...@googlegroups.com...
>
> |Nope. A counterexample exists, hence it's not absurd. (By "absurd" I mean
> |here "self-contradictory".
>
> Samely, for "cat" I mean "ant", so, cat has 6 legs,
which was not self-contradictory.
If you want to talk about redefinitions, create a new thread.
--
Jan
mlwo...@wp.pl
Dec 1, 2015, 2:20:35 AM12/1/15
to
W dniu poniedziałek, 30 listopada 2015 23:36:47 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 1:09:12 PM UTC-8, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup
> > dyskusyjnych:c50b69e4-3ba7-4371...@googlegroups.com...
> >
> > |Nope. A counterexample exists, hence it's not absurd. (By "absurd" I mean
> > |here "self-contradictory".
> >
> > Samely, for "cat" I mean "ant", so, cat has 6 legs,
>
> Irrelevant. The point I made was that Pentcho called "absurd" something
> which was not self-contradictory.
Absurd is absurd, while self-contradiction is self-contradiction.
> On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 1:09:12 PM UTC-8, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup
> > dyskusyjnych:c50b69e4-3ba7-4371...@googlegroups.com...
> >
> > |Nope. A counterexample exists, hence it's not absurd. (By "absurd" I mean
> > |here "self-contradictory".
> >
> > Samely, for "cat" I mean "ant", so, cat has 6 legs,
>
> Irrelevant. The point I made was that Pentcho called "absurd" something
> which was not self-contradictory.
And if you want to talk about redefinitions, create a new thread.
Gary Harnagel
Dec 1, 2015, 7:26:50 AM12/1/15
to
“In order to attain the impossible, one must attempt the absurd.”
– Miguel de Cervantes
“The most absurd and reckless aspirations have sometimes led to
extraordinary success.” -- Luc de Clapiers
“If at first the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it.”
-- Albert Einstein
"Self-consistency" is a mathematical characteristic, whereas "absurd" is
a human value judgment. One who labels a concept as absurd is often
shown to be wrong.
> And if you want to talk about redefinitions, create a new thread.
them, so don't go whining about getting your just desserts. That would
be the hallmark of a sociopath. Oh, wait -- THAT'S what you are! :-)
mlwo...@wp.pl
Dec 1, 2015, 7:50:32 AM12/1/15
to
W dniu wtorek, 1 grudnia 2015 13:26:50 UTC+1 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał:
> Comparing "absurd" to "self-contradiction" is baloney:
Yes, it is.
> Comparing "absurd" to "self-contradiction" is baloney:
> YOU are the one who tried to equate the two, i.e., attempted to redefine
It was your fellow idiot Jan.
mlwo...@wp.pl
Dec 1, 2015, 9:07:17 AM12/1/15
to
W dniu wtorek, 1 grudnia 2015 13:26:50 UTC+1 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał:
> “In order to attain the impossible, one must attempt the absurd.”
> – Miguel de Cervantes
>
> “The most absurd and reckless aspirations have sometimes led to
> extraordinary success.” -- Luc de Clapiers
Sometimes. Rarely. Usually impossible is attempt-proof and
> – Miguel de Cervantes
>
> “The most absurd and reckless aspirations have sometimes led to
> extraordinary success.” -- Luc de Clapiers
these absurd and reckless aspirations end with a sad and
expensive nothing. Or, even worse, with a sad, stinking
shit.
> “If at first the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it.”
> -- Albert Einstein
Pentcho Valev
Dec 1, 2015, 11:00:00 AM12/1/15
to
On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 12:36:47 AM UTC+2, JanPB wrote:
>
> The point I made was that Pentcho called "absurd" something
> which was not self-contradictory.
It IS self-contradictory. If the speed of light were independent of the motion of the observer, then there would be no reasonable explanation for the fact that the frequency measured by the observer shifts from f=c/λ to f'=(c+v)/λ when the observer starts moving with speed v towards the light source. The only reasonable explanation is this:
>
> The point I made was that Pentcho called "absurd" something
> which was not self-contradictory.
The frequency measured by the observer shifts from f=c/λ to f'=(c+v)/λ because the speed of the light relative to the observer shifts from c to c'=c+v.
Pentcho Valev
JanPB
Dec 1, 2015, 12:09:54 PM12/1/15
to
--
Jan
JanPB
Dec 1, 2015, 12:12:03 PM12/1/15
to
On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 8:00:00 AM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 12:36:47 AM UTC+2, JanPB wrote:
> >
> > The point I made was that Pentcho called "absurd" something
> > which was not self-contradictory.
>
> It IS self-contradictory.
So how come no physicist objects to it? Could it be that you don't understand something?
> On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 12:36:47 AM UTC+2, JanPB wrote:
> >
> > The point I made was that Pentcho called "absurd" something
> > which was not self-contradictory.
>
> It IS self-contradictory.
> If the speed of light were independent of the motion of the observer, then there would be no reasonable explanation for the fact that the frequency measured by the observer shifts from f=c/λ to f'=(c+v)/λ when the observer starts moving with speed v towards the light source. The only reasonable explanation is this:
>
> The frequency measured by the observer shifts from f=c/λ to f'=(c+v)/λ because the speed of the light relative to the observer shifts from c to c'=c+v.
--
Jan
Tom Roberts
Dec 1, 2015, 1:32:41 PM12/1/15
to
On 12/1/15 12/1/15 - 9:59 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 12:36:47 AM UTC+2, JanPB wrote:
>> The point I made was that Pentcho called "absurd" something which was not
>> self-contradictory.
>
> It IS self-contradictory.
No. It is merely your PERSONAL MISCONCEPTIONS which are self-contradictory.
> On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 12:36:47 AM UTC+2, JanPB wrote:
>> The point I made was that Pentcho called "absurd" something which was not
>> self-contradictory.
>
> It IS self-contradictory.
> If the speed of light were independent of the
> motion of the observer, then there would be no reasonable explanation for the
> fact that the frequency measured by the observer shifts from f=c/λ to
> f'=(c+v)/λ when the observer starts moving with speed v towards the light
> source.
the wavelength of light from distant astronomical objects display the annual
Doppler effect, showing that the measured wavelength of the light CHANGES with
the velocity of earth in its orbit.
> The only reasonable explanation is this:
understand modern physics, and did not include all possible explanations.
> The frequency measured by the observer shifts from f=c/λ to f'=(c+v)/λ
> because the speed of the light relative to the observer shifts from c to
> c'=c+v.
by the observer shifts, but the product frequency*wavelength remains constant
and equal to c.
Note to readers: Pentcho Valev is among the most persistent idiots
around here. He has been repeating this nonsense for many years,
without any attempt to learn the subject he tries to write about.
I reply to him only occasionally, as a service to readers who may
not recognize his mistakes. He has proven himself to be unable
and unwilling to learn anything.
Tom Roberts
Odd Bodkin
Dec 1, 2015, 3:17:15 PM12/1/15
to
On 12/1/2015 12:32 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
> But you ASSUME that λ remains constant, WHICH IS WRONG. Direct
> measurements of the wavelength of light from distant astronomical
> objects display the annual Doppler effect, showing that the measured
> wavelength of the light CHANGES with the velocity of earth in its orbit.
I think people like Pentcho believe that if he can't be made to
> But you ASSUME that λ remains constant, WHICH IS WRONG. Direct
> measurements of the wavelength of light from distant astronomical
> objects display the annual Doppler effect, showing that the measured
> wavelength of the light CHANGES with the velocity of earth in its orbit.
understand HOW wavelength changes, then the measurements that they DO
change are not believable.
People like Pentcho believe that common sense should overrule observation.
--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Pentcho Valev
Dec 1, 2015, 5:36:40 PM12/1/15
to
On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 8:32:41 PM UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 12/1/15 12/1/15 - 9:59 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> > If the speed of light were independent of the
> > motion of the observer, then there would be no reasonable explanation for the
> > fact that the frequency measured by the observer shifts from f=c/λ to
> > f'=(c+v)/λ when the observer starts moving with speed v towards the light
> > source.
>
> But you ASSUME that λ remains constant, WHICH IS WRONG.
Which is RIGHT, Clever Roberts - the motion of the observer cannot change the wavelength of the incoming light. Teachers from the Albert Einstein Institute, immeasurably cleverer than you, say so. Note the statement "This time, the distances between subsequent pulses are not affected, but still there is a frequency shift" in the text below:
> On 12/1/15 12/1/15 - 9:59 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> > If the speed of light were independent of the
> > motion of the observer, then there would be no reasonable explanation for the
> > fact that the frequency measured by the observer shifts from f=c/λ to
> > f'=(c+v)/λ when the observer starts moving with speed v towards the light
> > source.
>
> But you ASSUME that λ remains constant, WHICH IS WRONG.
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)
Pentcho Valev
Carl Heinz Krüger
Dec 1, 2015, 6:24:52 PM12/1/15
to
суббота., Tue, 01 Dec 2015 14:36:36 -0800 пользователь Pentcho Valev
написал:
>> But you ASSUME that λ remains constant, WHICH IS WRONG.
>
> Which is RIGHT, Clever Roberts - the motion of the observer cannot
> change the wavelength of the incoming light.
Ahahahaaa Pentcho. You just invalidated Relativity by this simple
challenge of answer to an obvious argument. Mr Tom thinks that an well
defined existent (material) physical structure can magically and remotely
have one, or more, of its fundamental intrinsic characteristics altered,
just like that. Good post Pentcho. Ten points arrives to you from here.
We need more posts like this. The era of Relativity is over. Been there,
done that. The future is Divergent Matterly.
написал:
>> But you ASSUME that λ remains constant, WHICH IS WRONG.
>
> Which is RIGHT, Clever Roberts - the motion of the observer cannot
> change the wavelength of the incoming light.
challenge of answer to an obvious argument. Mr Tom thinks that an well
defined existent (material) physical structure can magically and remotely
have one, or more, of its fundamental intrinsic characteristics altered,
just like that. Good post Pentcho. Ten points arrives to you from here.
We need more posts like this. The era of Relativity is over. Been there,
done that. The future is Divergent Matterly.
JanPB
Dec 1, 2015, 6:39:45 PM12/1/15
to
--
Jan
Carl Heinz Krüger
Dec 1, 2015, 6:47:58 PM12/1/15
to
суббота., Tue, 01 Dec 2015 15:39:43 -0800 пользователь JanPB написал:
Crank huh? I didn't called you a crank, but since you insist, you are
crank thinking that a wave, untouched by anything and anyone, can have its
LENGTH of it changed or altered in any comprehensible way. Except of
course, remotely altered by the pure POWER of THOUGHT. (Which presently is
vastly undocumented, of course). Thank you making this aspect of the
gedanken clearer.
crank thinking that a wave, untouched by anything and anyone, can have its
LENGTH of it changed or altered in any comprehensible way. Except of
course, remotely altered by the pure POWER of THOUGHT. (Which presently is
vastly undocumented, of course). Thank you making this aspect of the
gedanken clearer.
JanPB
Dec 1, 2015, 7:01:06 PM12/1/15
to
--
Jan
Carl Heinz Krüger
Dec 1, 2015, 7:08:14 PM12/1/15
to
суббота., Tue, 01 Dec 2015 16:01:04 -0800 пользователь JanPB написал:
When you think you have something consistent to say, as Pentcho has, wake
the boys up. Till now you said no physics of any color, but only insults.
Have a nice reading.
the boys up. Till now you said no physics of any color, but only insults.
Have a nice reading.
JanPB
Dec 1, 2015, 7:23:38 PM12/1/15
to
a good teacher, good textbooks, roll up your sleeves and get to work.
We have nothing to discuss yet.
--
Jan
mlwo...@wp.pl
Dec 2, 2015, 2:26:08 AM12/2/15
to
W dniu wtorek, 1 grudnia 2015 18:12:03 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 8:00:00 AM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 12:36:47 AM UTC+2, JanPB wrote:
> > >
> > > The point I made was that Pentcho called "absurd" something
> > > which was not self-contradictory.
> >
> > It IS self-contradictory.
>
> So how come no physicist objects to it?
A lie. As expected from a relativistic moron.
> On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 8:00:00 AM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 12:36:47 AM UTC+2, JanPB wrote:
> > >
> > > The point I made was that Pentcho called "absurd" something
> > > which was not self-contradictory.
> >
> > It IS self-contradictory.
>
> So how come no physicist objects to it?
When building General Shit, Great Guru was
forced to reject this idiocy.
Pentcho Valev
Dec 2, 2015, 5:02:09 AM12/2/15
to
http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/not-just-an-esoteric-celebrity/
"Why is it that nobody understands me, yet everybody likes me?" a bemused Albert Einstein asked a New York Times interviewer in 1944. Seven decades later, admiration for the scientist has soared enormously, even though his science remains as unfathomable to the general public as before. Its understanding is limited to the fraternity of physicists, many of whom are still grappling with the baffling implications of his theories. (...) The year 1905 is hailed as a miraculous year in the history of physics because of five pathbreaking papers produced by Einstein, then only 26. One of them unveiled the special theory of relativity, which stated that due to the constancy of the speed of light for all observers (and nothing can exceed the speed of light), the notions of time and space depend on one's state of motion."
http://plus.maths.org/issue37/features/Einstein/index.html
John Barrow FRS: "Einstein restored faith in the unintelligibility of science. Everyone knew that Einstein had done something important in 1905 (and again in 1915) but almost nobody could tell you exactly what it was. When Einstein was interviewed for a Dutch newspaper in 1921, he attributed his mass appeal to the mystery of his work for the ordinary person: "Does it make a silly impression on me, here and yonder, about my theories of which they cannot understand a word? I think it is funny and also interesting to observe. I am sure that it is the mystery of non-understanding that appeals to them...it impresses them, it has the colour and the appeal of the mysterious." Relativity was a fashionable notion. It promised to sweep away old absolutist notions and refurbish science with modern ideas. In art and literature too, revolutionary changes were doing away with old conventions and standards. All things were being made new. Einstein's relativity suited the mood. Nobody got very excited about Einstein's brownian motion or his photoelectric effect but relativity promised to turn the world inside out."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuxFXHircaI
Symphony of Science - Secret of the Stars. A musical celebration of E=MC squared and Einstein's theory of relativity. Featuring Michio Kaku, Brian Cox, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Brian Greene and Lisa Randall: "Light travels at the same speed No matter how you look at it No matter how I move relative to you Light travels at the same speed No matter who is doing the measurement And no matter what direction you are moving The speed of light is the same The speed of light is the same No matter what direction or how fast As you travel faster Time slows down Everything slows down Everything slows down Time slows down when you move Time passes at a different rate Clocks run slow It's a monumental shift in how we see the world It's a beautiful piece of science It's a beautifully elegant theory It's a beautiful piece of science It's a beautiful piece..."
http://www.krugozormagazine.com/main/content/9-2009_Enshtein-3.jpg
"The Riverside Church in New York, west portal - upper line, second of right. In 1930, during a stay in New York, Albert Einstein and his wife visited the Riverside Church, too. During the detailed guided tour through the church Einstein was also shown the sculptures at the west portal. He was told that only one of the sculptures there represented a living person, and that was he himself. What Einstein is supposed to have thought in that moment when he heard that information and saw himself immortalized in stone? Contemporaries reported that he looked at the sculpture calmly and thoughtfully."
Pentcho Valev
"Why is it that nobody understands me, yet everybody likes me?" a bemused Albert Einstein asked a New York Times interviewer in 1944. Seven decades later, admiration for the scientist has soared enormously, even though his science remains as unfathomable to the general public as before. Its understanding is limited to the fraternity of physicists, many of whom are still grappling with the baffling implications of his theories. (...) The year 1905 is hailed as a miraculous year in the history of physics because of five pathbreaking papers produced by Einstein, then only 26. One of them unveiled the special theory of relativity, which stated that due to the constancy of the speed of light for all observers (and nothing can exceed the speed of light), the notions of time and space depend on one's state of motion."
http://plus.maths.org/issue37/features/Einstein/index.html
John Barrow FRS: "Einstein restored faith in the unintelligibility of science. Everyone knew that Einstein had done something important in 1905 (and again in 1915) but almost nobody could tell you exactly what it was. When Einstein was interviewed for a Dutch newspaper in 1921, he attributed his mass appeal to the mystery of his work for the ordinary person: "Does it make a silly impression on me, here and yonder, about my theories of which they cannot understand a word? I think it is funny and also interesting to observe. I am sure that it is the mystery of non-understanding that appeals to them...it impresses them, it has the colour and the appeal of the mysterious." Relativity was a fashionable notion. It promised to sweep away old absolutist notions and refurbish science with modern ideas. In art and literature too, revolutionary changes were doing away with old conventions and standards. All things were being made new. Einstein's relativity suited the mood. Nobody got very excited about Einstein's brownian motion or his photoelectric effect but relativity promised to turn the world inside out."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuxFXHircaI
Symphony of Science - Secret of the Stars. A musical celebration of E=MC squared and Einstein's theory of relativity. Featuring Michio Kaku, Brian Cox, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Brian Greene and Lisa Randall: "Light travels at the same speed No matter how you look at it No matter how I move relative to you Light travels at the same speed No matter who is doing the measurement And no matter what direction you are moving The speed of light is the same The speed of light is the same No matter what direction or how fast As you travel faster Time slows down Everything slows down Everything slows down Time slows down when you move Time passes at a different rate Clocks run slow It's a monumental shift in how we see the world It's a beautiful piece of science It's a beautifully elegant theory It's a beautiful piece of science It's a beautiful piece..."
http://www.krugozormagazine.com/main/content/9-2009_Enshtein-3.jpg
"The Riverside Church in New York, west portal - upper line, second of right. In 1930, during a stay in New York, Albert Einstein and his wife visited the Riverside Church, too. During the detailed guided tour through the church Einstein was also shown the sculptures at the west portal. He was told that only one of the sculptures there represented a living person, and that was he himself. What Einstein is supposed to have thought in that moment when he heard that information and saw himself immortalized in stone? Contemporaries reported that he looked at the sculpture calmly and thoughtfully."
Pentcho Valev
Gary Harnagel
Dec 2, 2015, 6:15:42 AM12/2/15
to
On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 12:26:08 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
>
> A lie. As expected from a relativistic moron.
> When building General Shit, Great Guru was
> forced to reject this idiocy.
So you're a liar. So what else is new?
>
> A lie. As expected from a relativistic moron.
> When building General Shit, Great Guru was
> forced to reject this idiocy.
mlwo...@wp.pl
Dec 2, 2015, 6:40:09 AM12/2/15
to
don't know your Shit.
Of course, both.
kenseto
Dec 2, 2015, 9:09:50 AM12/2/15
to
On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 1:32:41 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 12/1/15 12/1/15 - 9:59 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 12:36:47 AM UTC+2, JanPB wrote:
> >> The point I made was that Pentcho called "absurd" something which was not
> >> self-contradictory.
> >
> > It IS self-contradictory.
>
> No. It is merely your PERSONAL MISCONCEPTIONS which are self-contradictory.
>
>
> > If the speed of light were independent of the
> > motion of the observer, then there would be no reasonable explanation for the
> > fact that the frequency measured by the observer shifts from f=c/λ to
> > f'=(c+v)/λ when the observer starts moving with speed v towards the light
> > source.
>
> But you ASSUME that λ remains constant, WHICH IS WRONG. Direct measurements of
> the wavelength of light from distant astronomical objects display the annual
> Doppler effect, showing that the measured wavelength of the light CHANGES with
> the velocity of earth in its orbit.
Lambda of an elementary source is a universal constant. The speed of incoming light is caculated as follows:
> On 12/1/15 12/1/15 - 9:59 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 12:36:47 AM UTC+2, JanPB wrote:
> >> The point I made was that Pentcho called "absurd" something which was not
> >> self-contradictory.
> >
> > It IS self-contradictory.
>
> No. It is merely your PERSONAL MISCONCEPTIONS which are self-contradictory.
>
>
> > If the speed of light were independent of the
> > motion of the observer, then there would be no reasonable explanation for the
> > fact that the frequency measured by the observer shifts from f=c/λ to
> > f'=(c+v)/λ when the observer starts moving with speed v towards the light
> > source.
>
> But you ASSUME that λ remains constant, WHICH IS WRONG. Direct measurements of
> the wavelength of light from distant astronomical objects display the annual
> Doppler effect, showing that the measured wavelength of the light CHANGES with
> the velocity of earth in its orbit.
c'=c(Lambda_source/Lambda_incoming)=c(frequency of incoming light/frequency of the source)
kenseto
Dec 2, 2015, 9:29:07 AM12/2/15
to
On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 1:32:41 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 12/1/15 12/1/15 - 9:59 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 12:36:47 AM UTC+2, JanPB wrote:
> >> The point I made was that Pentcho called "absurd" something which was not
> >> self-contradictory.
> >
> > It IS self-contradictory.
>
> No. It is merely your PERSONAL MISCONCEPTIONS which are self-contradictory.
>
>
> > If the speed of light were independent of the
> > motion of the observer, then there would be no reasonable explanation for the
> > fact that the frequency measured by the observer shifts from f=c/λ to
> > f'=(c+v)/λ when the observer starts moving with speed v towards the light
> > source.
>
> But you ASSUME that λ remains constant, WHICH IS WRONG. Direct measurements of
> the wavelength of light from distant astronomical objects display the annual
> Doppler effect, showing that the measured wavelength of the light CHANGES with
> the velocity of earth in its orbit.
>
>
> > The only reasonable explanation is this:
>
> No. Your attempt to argue via exhaustive enumeration fails because YOU do not
> understand modern physics, and did not include all possible explanations.
>
>
> > The frequency measured by the observer shifts from f=c/λ to f'=(c+v)/λ
> > because the speed of the light relative to the observer shifts from c tof'
> > On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 12:36:47 AM UTC+2, JanPB wrote:
> >> The point I made was that Pentcho called "absurd" something which was not
> >> self-contradictory.
> >
> > It IS self-contradictory.
>
> No. It is merely your PERSONAL MISCONCEPTIONS which are self-contradictory.
>
>
> > If the speed of light were independent of the
> > motion of the observer, then there would be no reasonable explanation for the
> > fact that the frequency measured by the observer shifts from f=c/λ to
> > f'=(c+v)/λ when the observer starts moving with speed v towards the light
> > source.
>
> But you ASSUME that λ remains constant, WHICH IS WRONG. Direct measurements of
> the wavelength of light from distant astronomical objects display the annual
> Doppler effect, showing that the measured wavelength of the light CHANGES with
> the velocity of earth in its orbit.
>
>
> > The only reasonable explanation is this:
>
> No. Your attempt to argue via exhaustive enumeration fails because YOU do not
> understand modern physics, and did not include all possible explanations.
>
>
> > The frequency measured by the observer shifts from f=c/λ to f'=(c+v)/λ
> > c'=c+v.
>
> No. The frequency measured by the observer shifts, and the wavelength measured
> by the observer shifts, but the product frequency*wavelength remains constant
> and equal to c.
c'=c(f/f')=c(Lambda_incoming light/Lambda_source)
>
> No. The frequency measured by the observer shifts, and the wavelength measured
> by the observer shifts, but the product frequency*wavelength remains constant
> and equal to c.
Carl Heinz Krüger
Dec 2, 2015, 11:08:16 AM12/2/15
to
суббота., Tue, 01 Dec 2015 16:23:36 -0800 пользователь JanPB написал:
>> When you think you have something consistent to say, as Pentcho has,
>> wake the boys up. Till now you said no physics of any color, but only
>> insults. Have a nice reading.
>
> You won't get anywhere in this business by fantasising. Get yourself a
> good teacher, good textbooks, roll up your sleeves and get to work. We
> have nothing to discuss yet.
I had a suspicion, you are one of those guys whos talks are four and a
half hours too long. A reason to believe that you must be not more than
probably a programmer, or a CAD designer with Relativity "experience". You
are not a physicist nor a scientist, that's almost for sure. Am I right?
>> When you think you have something consistent to say, as Pentcho has,
>> wake the boys up. Till now you said no physics of any color, but only
>> insults. Have a nice reading.
>
> You won't get anywhere in this business by fantasising. Get yourself a
> good teacher, good textbooks, roll up your sleeves and get to work. We
> have nothing to discuss yet.
half hours too long. A reason to believe that you must be not more than
probably a programmer, or a CAD designer with Relativity "experience". You
are not a physicist nor a scientist, that's almost for sure. Am I right?
Tom Roberts
Dec 2, 2015, 1:52:39 PM12/2/15
to
On 12/1/15 12/1/15 - 4:36 PM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 8:32:41 PM UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
>> On 12/1/15 12/1/15 - 9:59 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>>> [...]
> On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 8:32:41 PM UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
>> On 12/1/15 12/1/15 - 9:59 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>>
>> But you ASSUME that λ remains constant, WHICH IS WRONG.
>
> Which is RIGHT
No, IT IS NOT. The zillions of observations of the annual Doppler effect show
>> But you ASSUME that λ remains constant, WHICH IS WRONG.
>
> Which is RIGHT
your claim to be wrong. The world simply does NOT behave the way you wish it did.
> - the motion of the observer cannot change the
> wavelength of the incoming light.
wavelength are intrinsic properties of a light ray, they are RELATIONSHIPS
between the ray and a particular measuring instrument. Differently-moving
instruments can obtain different values for a given ray.
So in particular, your "change" is flat-out wrong --
that concept simply does not apply.
> [...]
All your IRRELEVANT links cannot change this. Observations trump your fantasies
and dreams. Light is DIFFERENT from sound (duh!).
JanPB
Dec 2, 2015, 2:05:06 PM12/2/15
to
On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 8:08:16 AM UTC-8, Carl Heinz Krüger wrote:
> суббота., Tue, 01 Dec 2015 16:23:36 -0800 пользователь JanPB написал:
>
> >> When you think you have something consistent to say, as Pentcho has,
> >> wake the boys up. Till now you said no physics of any color, but only
> >> insults. Have a nice reading.
> >
> > You won't get anywhere in this business by fantasising. Get yourself a
> > good teacher, good textbooks, roll up your sleeves and get to work. We
> > have nothing to discuss yet.
>
> I had a suspicion, you are one of those guys whos talks are four and a
> half hours too long.
Point was both you and Pentcho don't understand the subject you are attempting
> суббота., Tue, 01 Dec 2015 16:23:36 -0800 пользователь JanPB написал:
>
> >> When you think you have something consistent to say, as Pentcho has,
> >> wake the boys up. Till now you said no physics of any color, but only
> >> insults. Have a nice reading.
> >
> > You won't get anywhere in this business by fantasising. Get yourself a
> > good teacher, good textbooks, roll up your sleeves and get to work. We
> > have nothing to discuss yet.
>
> I had a suspicion, you are one of those guys whos talks are four and a
> half hours too long.
to discuss.
> A reason to believe that you must be not more than
> probably a programmer, or a CAD designer with Relativity "experience". You
> are not a physicist nor a scientist, that's almost for sure. Am I right?
--
Jan
Maciej Woźniak
Dec 2, 2015, 2:51:34 PM12/2/15
to
Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup
|I am a mathematician.
Believing immutable mathematical truth, 150 years after
Lobachevsky.
JanPB
Dec 2, 2015, 3:02:48 PM12/2/15
to
What you allude to above is a redefinition.
--
Jan
Maciej Woźniak
Dec 2, 2015, 3:22:55 PM12/2/15
to
Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup
On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 11:51:34 AM UTC-8, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:f984b049-012d-4f82...@googlegroups.com...
>
> |I am a mathematician.
>
> Believing immutable mathematical truth, 150 years after
> Lobachevsky.
|Mathematical truths are eternal and immutable.
true, as it was 200 years ago.
And you're a queen of England.
Pentcho Valev
Dec 2, 2015, 3:26:42 PM12/2/15
to
On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 8:52:39 PM UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 12/1/15 12/1/15 - 4:36 PM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> > - the motion of the observer cannot change the
> > wavelength of the incoming light.
>
> Hmmmm. THE LIGHT DOES NOT POSSES A WAVELENGTH. That is, neither frequency nor
> wavelength are intrinsic properties of a light ray, they are RELATIONSHIPS
> between the ray and a particular measuring instrument. Differently-moving
> instruments can obtain different values for a given ray.
Bravo, Clever Roberts! An illustration:
> On 12/1/15 12/1/15 - 4:36 PM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> > - the motion of the observer cannot change the
> > wavelength of the incoming light.
>
> Hmmmm. THE LIGHT DOES NOT POSSES A WAVELENGTH. That is, neither frequency nor
> wavelength are intrinsic properties of a light ray, they are RELATIONSHIPS
> between the ray and a particular measuring instrument. Differently-moving
> instruments can obtain different values for a given ray.
http://lewebpedagogique.com/physique/files/p8044_37aa292833de8bd2b5c4583ffb76cf69p866_a910dac1b2c66fe5536711394c0cd778doppler_p.gif
Pentcho Valev
JanPB
Dec 2, 2015, 3:32:17 PM12/2/15
to
On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 12:22:55 PM UTC-8, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:1d0249d8-67a4-4e56...@googlegroups.com...
>
> On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 11:51:34 AM UTC-8, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup
> > dyskusyjnych:f984b049-012d-4f82...@googlegroups.com...
> >
> > |I am a mathematician.
> >
> > Believing immutable mathematical truth, 150 years after
> > Lobachevsky.
>
> |Mathematical truths are eternal and immutable.
>
> Yeah. Sure. For instance, Pythagorean theorem is as
> true, as it was 200 years ago.
Correct.
> Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:1d0249d8-67a4-4e56...@googlegroups.com...
>
> On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 11:51:34 AM UTC-8, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup
> > dyskusyjnych:f984b049-012d-4f82...@googlegroups.com...
> >
> > |I am a mathematician.
> >
> > Believing immutable mathematical truth, 150 years after
> > Lobachevsky.
>
> |Mathematical truths are eternal and immutable.
>
> Yeah. Sure. For instance, Pythagorean theorem is as
> true, as it was 200 years ago.
> And you're a queen of England.
--
Jan
Carl Heinz Krüger
Dec 2, 2015, 3:47:00 PM12/2/15
to
суббота., Wed, 02 Dec 2015 12:52:36 -0600 пользователь Tom Roberts
написал:
> On 12/1/15 12/1/15 - 4:36 PM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>> On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 8:32:41 PM UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
>>> On 12/1/15 12/1/15 - 9:59 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>
>>> But you ASSUME that λ remains constant, WHICH IS WRONG.
So it has a wavelength.
>> Which is RIGHT - the motion of the observer cannot change the
> All your IRRELEVANT links cannot change this. Observations trump your
> fantasies and dreams. Light is DIFFERENT from sound (duh!).
Yes?
> Note to readers: Pentcho Valev is among the most persistent idiots
I'm not so sure is Pentcho the one which is persistent.
написал:
> On 12/1/15 12/1/15 - 4:36 PM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>> On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 8:32:41 PM UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
>>> On 12/1/15 12/1/15 - 9:59 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>
>>> But you ASSUME that λ remains constant, WHICH IS WRONG.
>> Which is RIGHT - the motion of the observer cannot change the
>> wavelength of the incoming light.
>
> Hmmmm. THE LIGHT DOES NOT POSSES A WAVELENGTH. That is, neither
Now it does NOT have a wavelength. :)
>
> Hmmmm. THE LIGHT DOES NOT POSSES A WAVELENGTH. That is, neither
> All your IRRELEVANT links cannot change this. Observations trump your
> fantasies and dreams. Light is DIFFERENT from sound (duh!).
> Note to readers: Pentcho Valev is among the most persistent idiots
Maciej Woźniak
Dec 2, 2015, 3:49:21 PM12/2/15
to
Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup
> |Mathematical truths are eternal and immutable.
>
> Yeah. Sure. For instance, Pythagorean theorem is as
> true, as it was 200 years ago.
|Correct.
> And you're a queen of England.
|Apparently you don't understand what I mean by that phrase.
Carl Heinz Krüger
Dec 2, 2015, 3:51:29 PM12/2/15
to
суббота., Wed, 02 Dec 2015 11:05:02 -0800 пользователь JanPB написал:
>> I had a suspicion, you are one of those guys whos talks are four and a
>> half hours too long.
>
> Point was both you and Pentcho don't understand the subject you are
> attempting to discuss.
No, it's you in need for study the subject. And you can't read nor
understand what Tom said. Ie that an allegedly "non-existent"
particularity of light changes. Which is an absurdity. If light is not a
way with a distinct wavelength, then the same cannot have its same thing
changed.
>> A reason to believe that you must be not more than probably a
>> programmer, or a CAD designer with Relativity "experience". You are not
>> a physicist nor a scientist, that's almost for sure. Am I right?
>
> I am a mathematician.
Definitely you are not. You lack logics. And tensor gymnastics, to be near
the subject.
>> I had a suspicion, you are one of those guys whos talks are four and a
>> half hours too long.
>
> Point was both you and Pentcho don't understand the subject you are
> attempting to discuss.
understand what Tom said. Ie that an allegedly "non-existent"
particularity of light changes. Which is an absurdity. If light is not a
way with a distinct wavelength, then the same cannot have its same thing
changed.
>> A reason to believe that you must be not more than probably a
>> programmer, or a CAD designer with Relativity "experience". You are not
>> a physicist nor a scientist, that's almost for sure. Am I right?
>
> I am a mathematician.
the subject.
Tom Roberts
Dec 3, 2015, 11:59:30 AM12/3/15
to
On 12/1/15 12/1/15 2:17 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> I think people like Pentcho believe that if he can't be made to understand HOW
> wavelength changes, then the measurements that they DO change are not believable.
>
> People like Pentcho believe that common sense should overrule observation.
Well, the usual rule is "Don't attribute to maliciousness what can be explained
> I think people like Pentcho believe that if he can't be made to understand HOW
> wavelength changes, then the measurements that they DO change are not believable.
>
> People like Pentcho believe that common sense should overrule observation.
by incompetence". In Valev's case it is quite clear that he is both incompetent
and malicious.
Tom Roberts
Tom Roberts
Dec 3, 2015, 12:01:45 PM12/3/15
to
Tom Roberts
Tom Roberts
Dec 3, 2015, 12:03:16 PM12/3/15
to
On 12/2/15 12/2/15 2:46 PM, Carl Heinz Krüger wrote:
> суббота., Wed, 02 Dec 2015 12:52:36 -0600 пользователь Tom Roberts
> написал:
> суббота., Wed, 02 Dec 2015 12:52:36 -0600 пользователь Tom Roberts
> написал:
>>>> But you ASSUME that λ remains constant, WHICH IS WRONG.
>
> So it has a wavelength.
λ is the result of a MEASUREMENT. It is not a property of the light.
>
> So it has a wavelength.
Tom Roberts
Maciej Woźniak
Dec 3, 2015, 12:25:49 PM12/3/15
to
On 12/1/15 12/1/15 2:17 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
> People like Pentcho believe that common sense should overrule observation.
Mathematics doesn't explain it, but somehow observers
differ. Some of them are good observers and make
good observations of value. Some others are poor, and their
obsarvations are worthless; becasuse their observations are
worthless, we're calling such observers "stupid" or "lacking
common sense". It's pejorative, because we don't want
worthless observations, and we want these "stupid" "lacking
common sense" observers to learn, how to make good
observations of value.
So, yes, common sense should overrule lacking of common
sense observations.
Odd Bodkin
Dec 3, 2015, 1:44:54 PM12/3/15
to
their psyches can't absorb it any more. And so they deny it. Delusions
of grandeur commonly follow. Valev, Wublee, Seto, Wilson -- all the same.
>
>
> Tom Roberts
--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Carl Heinz Krüger
Dec 3, 2015, 2:28:14 PM12/3/15
to
суббота., Thu, 03 Dec 2015 11:03:14 -0600 пользователь Tom Roberts
needle of an odometer does not show the speed of the automobile, since the
automobile has not a speed as its property.
However, in Physics there are two kind of measurements. Invasive and Non-
invasive measurements. The Invasive MUST be measuring THAT parameter/
property, since that PROPERTY is directly interfaced with the needle on
the scale of that measurement instrument.
The Non-invasive supposing a direct and indirect interface, but still is
about the same PROPERTY, as otherwise that measurement would make no sense.
Hopefully my little treatise is not already 4½ hours too long.
написал:
> On 12/2/15 12/2/15 2:46 PM, Carl Heinz Krüger wrote:
>> суббота., Wed, 02 Dec 2015 12:52:36 -0600 пользователь Tom Roberts
>> написал:
>>>>> But you ASSUME that λ remains constant, WHICH IS WRONG.
>>
>> So it has a wavelength.
>
> λ is the result of a MEASUREMENT. It is not a property of the light.
Intriguing. So the needle on a scale is the length of the wave. And the
> On 12/2/15 12/2/15 2:46 PM, Carl Heinz Krüger wrote:
>> суббота., Wed, 02 Dec 2015 12:52:36 -0600 пользователь Tom Roberts
>> написал:
>>>>> But you ASSUME that λ remains constant, WHICH IS WRONG.
>>
>> So it has a wavelength.
>
> λ is the result of a MEASUREMENT. It is not a property of the light.
needle of an odometer does not show the speed of the automobile, since the
automobile has not a speed as its property.
However, in Physics there are two kind of measurements. Invasive and Non-
invasive measurements. The Invasive MUST be measuring THAT parameter/
property, since that PROPERTY is directly interfaced with the needle on
the scale of that measurement instrument.
The Non-invasive supposing a direct and indirect interface, but still is
about the same PROPERTY, as otherwise that measurement would make no sense.
Hopefully my little treatise is not already 4½ hours too long.
0 new messages