Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
RELATIVITY INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE WAVE MODEL OF LIGHT
3 views
Skip to first unread message
Pentcho Valev
Nov 3, 2012, 7:07:17 AM11/3/12
to
That relativity is incompatible with the particle model of light is more than obvious - sometimes clever Einsteinians explicitly admit this:
http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."
Silly Einsteinians counteract such challenges by claiming that light is a wave, not a particle, and therefore Divine Albert's Divine Theory is irrefutable, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. The problem is that the Divine Theory is incompatible with the wave model of light as well. The following video shows that, at least for water and sound waves, the wavelength remains unchanged and the apparent speed of the waves, that is, the speed of the waves as seen by the observer, increases (v'=v+u) when the observer starts moving towards the wave source:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ps8BYnDG0A
Silly Einsteinians have a new counterargument: The motion of the observer may not be able to change the wavelength of water and sound waves but it does change the wavelength of light waves so that the speed of the waves as seen by the observer remains constant, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. This counterargument is too silly indeed and would be paid no attention in a sane atmosphere but in the insane atmosphere of Divine Albert's world it has to be dealt with:
http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Valev_Shift_in_Frequency_Im.pdf
"Shift in Frequency Implies Shift in Speed of Light"
Pentcho Valev
http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."
Silly Einsteinians counteract such challenges by claiming that light is a wave, not a particle, and therefore Divine Albert's Divine Theory is irrefutable, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. The problem is that the Divine Theory is incompatible with the wave model of light as well. The following video shows that, at least for water and sound waves, the wavelength remains unchanged and the apparent speed of the waves, that is, the speed of the waves as seen by the observer, increases (v'=v+u) when the observer starts moving towards the wave source:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ps8BYnDG0A
Silly Einsteinians have a new counterargument: The motion of the observer may not be able to change the wavelength of water and sound waves but it does change the wavelength of light waves so that the speed of the waves as seen by the observer remains constant, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. This counterargument is too silly indeed and would be paid no attention in a sane atmosphere but in the insane atmosphere of Divine Albert's world it has to be dealt with:
http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Valev_Shift_in_Frequency_Im.pdf
"Shift in Frequency Implies Shift in Speed of Light"
Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
Nov 12, 2012, 3:11:39 AM11/12/12
to
http://www.uvm.edu/~mfuris/INTRO_PHYSLETS/contents/oscillations_waves/sound/illustration18_4.html
"When the observer is moving, as in Animation 2, the sound waves emitted from the source are undisturbed. The wavelength does not change as observed from the moving observer. He/she just comes across more/less wave fronts per time (...) when moving toward/away from the source, and consequently sees a change in frequency."
Animation 2 acts like the face of Medusa the Gorgon - on seeing it, Einsteinians get petrified for a long time. The thought that the same holds true for light waves (that is, relative to the moving observer, the frequency and the speed of the waves change while the wavelength remains constant) is unbearable. Eventually Einsteinians put all their hopes in another animation - it must clearly show that, for light waves, the motion of the observer somehow changes the wavelength so that the speed of the waves relative to the observer gloriously remains unchanged, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EVzUyE2oD1w
"Fermilab physicist, Dr. Ricardo Eusebi, discusses the Doppler effect..."
What? The same picture? The wavelength clearly does not change and the speed of the light waves relative to the observer is shown to be... No! Help! Help! Divine Einstein! Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity! Crimestop! Crimestop! Crimestop!
http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17
George Orwell: "Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."
Pentcho Valev
"When the observer is moving, as in Animation 2, the sound waves emitted from the source are undisturbed. The wavelength does not change as observed from the moving observer. He/she just comes across more/less wave fronts per time (...) when moving toward/away from the source, and consequently sees a change in frequency."
Animation 2 acts like the face of Medusa the Gorgon - on seeing it, Einsteinians get petrified for a long time. The thought that the same holds true for light waves (that is, relative to the moving observer, the frequency and the speed of the waves change while the wavelength remains constant) is unbearable. Eventually Einsteinians put all their hopes in another animation - it must clearly show that, for light waves, the motion of the observer somehow changes the wavelength so that the speed of the waves relative to the observer gloriously remains unchanged, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EVzUyE2oD1w
"Fermilab physicist, Dr. Ricardo Eusebi, discusses the Doppler effect..."
What? The same picture? The wavelength clearly does not change and the speed of the light waves relative to the observer is shown to be... No! Help! Help! Divine Einstein! Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity! Crimestop! Crimestop! Crimestop!
http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17
George Orwell: "Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."
Pentcho Valev
0 new messages