Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
HOW EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY KILLED OFF SANE SCIENCE
28 views
Skip to first unread message
Pentcho Valev
Nov 29, 2015, 8:07:14 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
Sam Wormley
Nov 29, 2015, 8:13:59 PM11/29/15
to
On 11/29/15 7:07 PM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> 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:
Pentcho cannot site any observation or experiment that shows that the
> 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:
speed of light is anything other than the constant c for inertial
observers.
See: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
--
sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.
jay moseley
Nov 30, 2015, 5:59:00 AM11/30/15
to
Sam Wormley wrote...
>_Pentcho cannot site any observation or experiment that shows that the speed of light is anything other than the constant c for inertial observers.
See: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/ physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
None of the experiments listed in the url above show that light is always
c for any observor in any inertial frame.
The Baez link is pseudoscientific nonsense.
>_Pentcho cannot site any observation or experiment that shows that the speed of light is anything other than the constant c for inertial observers.
See: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/ physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
None of the experiments listed in the url above show that light is always
c for any observor in any inertial frame.
The Baez link is pseudoscientific nonsense.
Sam Wormley
Nov 30, 2015, 10:38:19 AM11/30/15
to
or experiment measuring the speed of light for inertial observers to
be something other than c.
Pentcho Valev
Dec 1, 2015, 11:28:09 AM12/1/15
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..."
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.
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..."
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.
Pentcho Valev
Sam Wormley
Dec 1, 2015, 11:41:21 AM12/1/15
to
On 12/1/15 10:28 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...
> 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
Review | Relativistic Doppler effect
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect
Systematic derivation for inertial observers
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect#Systematic_derivation_for_inertial_observers
Carl Heinz Krüger
Dec 1, 2015, 6:24:54 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.
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.
Carl Heinz Krüger
Dec 1, 2015, 6:48:04 PM12/1/15
to
суббота., Tue, 01 Dec 2015 15:39:43 -0800 пользователь JanPB написал:
> On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 3:24:52 PM UTC-8, Carl Heinz Krüger
> Nothing funnier than two cranks congratulating one another on mutual
> idiocy.
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.
> On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 3:24:52 PM UTC-8, Carl Heinz Krüger
> idiocy.
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.
xxe...@att.net
Dec 2, 2015, 12:09:50 AM12/2/15
to
The only correct thing said about light is that it has a constant value and that it's mode of travel has nothing to with the receiver or emitter. Everything else about it is made through assumption. Or, tell me about it. Just because Einstein says something and makes a workable theory of it, it doesn't mean it's true in nature. Nature has fooled man throughout man's history. I don't think that suddenly stops now.
Pentcho Valev
Dec 2, 2015, 5:07:04 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
Carl Heinz Krüger
Dec 3, 2015, 2:28:15 PM12/3/15
to
суббота., Thu, 03 Dec 2015 11:03:14 -0600 пользователь Tom Roberts
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
>
> 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
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.
>>>>> But you ASSUME that λ remains constant, WHICH IS WRONG.
>>
>
> 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
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