ZILLIONS OF OBSERVATIONS OF WAVELENGTH IN EINSTEIN CRIMINAL CULT
Pentcho Valev
> harry wrote:
> > On May 4, 8:12 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> That would be true if wavelength were an intrinsic property of the light
> >> wave, but it isn't. <shrug>
> >> Wavelength is a _relationship_ between a given light wave and a specific
> >> inertial frame in which the distance between wave crests is measured. it
> >> cannot possibly be intrinsic to the wave.
> >
> > Obviously the word "intrinsic" is ambiguous in this context;
>
> No, it isn't. Intrinsic properties of an object are those properties
> that are inherent in the object, unrelated to anything else. In modern
> physics, intrinsic properties are invariant.
>
>
> > Apparently you use "intrinsic" as a synonym for "invariant",
>
> No. But they are related.
>
>
> > Indeed, it is *by definition* impossible to physically
> > change the length of a wave by changing the speed of observation.
>
> There is no such thing as "length of a wave". THAT'S THE POINT. There is
> only "wavelength as measured in this frame". Any model in which
> wavelength is a property of the wave alone is refuted by zillions of
> observations. <shrug>
>
>
> Tom Roberts
Bravo Roberts bravo Tom bravo Albert Einstein of our generation
(Hawking is no longer etc.)! Your student Harry does not seem to
understand your wisdom and I think you should kick him out of Einstein
cult. Anyway, you say "zillions" but I know you mean Pound and Rebka
1960 experiment that proved that the frequency varies in accordance
with
f' = f(1 + V/c^2) /1/
where V is the gravitational potential. Bad people hostile to Einstein
criminal cult remembered Einstein's 1911 equation
c' = c(1 + V/c^2) /2/
and said that /1/ and /2/ are consistent, in accordance with the
formula
frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength) /3/
However Big Brother sees all and bad intentions were quickly noticed
and counteracted. You Roberts Roberts, the Albert Einstein of our
generation (Hawking is no longer etc.), you declared Einstein's 1911
equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) WRONG (you did not say it should be replaced
with the correct equation c'=c but what else could /2/ be replaced
with Roberts Roberts?) and started worshipping, apart from Divine
Albert, THE WAVELENGTH: if something varies in accordance with the
varying frequency /1/, this something could only be the wavelength and
by no means the speed of light as predicted by Einstein. Now Roberts
Roberts your work should be completed:
Einstein's 1911 wrong equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) is replaced with the
correct equation
c' = c /4/
In accordance with /1/, /3/ and /4/, the wavelength varies in the
following way:
L' = L/(1 + V/c^2) /5/
Do you agree Roberts Roberts? Or perhaps Einstein's 1911 equation
c'=c(1+V/c^2) is not so wrong after all?
Pentcho Valev
harry
"Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1178519257....@e51g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
Did he really write that?? It doesn't show up in my news reader...
>> harry wrote:
>> > On May 4, 8:12 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >> That would be true if wavelength were an intrinsic property of the
>> >> light
>> >> wave, but it isn't. <shrug>
>> >> Wavelength is a _relationship_ between a given light wave and a
>> >> specific
>> >> inertial frame in which the distance between wave crests is measured.
>> >> it
>> >> cannot possibly be intrinsic to the wave.
>> >
>> > Obviously the word "intrinsic" is ambiguous in this context;
>>
>> No, it isn't. Intrinsic properties of an object are those properties
>> that are inherent in the object, unrelated to anything else. In modern
>> physics, intrinsic properties are invariant.
That's wrong. One should not attempt to force one's personal philosophy on
other physicists.
>> > Apparently you use "intrinsic" as a synonym for "invariant",
>>
>> No. But they are related.
>>
>>
>> > Indeed, it is *by definition* impossible to physically
>> > change the length of a wave by changing the speed of observation.
>>
>> There is no such thing as "length of a wave". THAT'S THE POINT. There is
>> only "wavelength as measured in this frame". Any model in which
>> wavelength is a property of the wave alone is refuted by zillions of
>> observations. <shrug>
Tom(?) snipped the argument, but that's not unusual. Did he really write
that?? A long time ago he prepared a few write-ups about "LET" (with "LET"
he means Lorentz's interpretation), in which he stated correctly:
"One can pick _any_ inertial frame whatsoever, call it the "ether frame"
and apply LET using that "ether frame" and obtain the same computations
and predictions as in SR"
In any medium model (e.g. acoustics), wavelength depends on the frequency
in the medium and the properties of the medium; if one consistenly uses a
wave model, the wavelength cannot depend on the frame of measurement (of
course, *apparent* wavelength *does* depend on it).
>> Tom Roberts
>
> Bravo Roberts bravo Tom bravo Albert Einstein of our generation
> (Hawking is no longer etc.)! Your student Harry does not seem to
I'm certainly not "his student" - and happily so!
SNIP Pound and Rebka as I already attempted to explain that to you in the
past - no use of going round in circles.
Harald
kanuk
"Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1178519257....@e51g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
explicitly, that some change has been unquestionably measured, but it is not
possible to decide if it caused by change of "light" speed or its frequency.
Eric Gisse
Androcles
"kanuk" <sper...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:oZ11i.173163$DE1.63283@pd7urf2no...
:
: "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Very simply, frequency = 1/time.
Since both redshift and blueshift are observable then for light speed to
remain constant we have a change in time, both dilation and contraction,
for the same GPS receiver midway between two satellites, one on
the Eastern horizon and one the Western, as the Earth turns.
Don't believe all you read in the papers, it *is* possible to decide.