Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Why String Theory Is the Leading Candidate for Theory of Everything
46 views
Skip to first unread message
Pentcho Valev
Dec 18, 2017, 6:23:44 PM12/18/17
to
“String theory (or, more technically, M-theory) is often described as the leading candidate for the theory of everything in our universe. But there’s no empirical evidence for it, or for any alternative ideas about how gravity might unify with the rest of the fundamental forces. Why, then, is string/M-theory given the edge over the others?” https://www.quantamagazine.org/why-is-m-theory-the-leading-candidate-for-theory-of-everything-20171218/
The answer is obvious. String theory is unverifiable, even in principle. This means maximum fraud - string theory is the absolute champion in post-truth science.
In TOE, post-truth scientists try to reconcile irreconcilable concepts - Newton’s absolute time and Einstein’s spacetime which cannot be both correct:
"The effort to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity means reconciling totally different notions of time. In quantum mechanics, time is universal and absolute; its steady ticks dictate the evolving entanglements between particles. But in general relativity (Albert Einstein's theory of gravity), time is relative and dynamical, a dimension that's inextricably interwoven with directions X, Y and Z into a four-dimensional "space-time" fabric." https://www.quantamagazine.org/20161201-quantum-gravitys-time-problem/
Perimeter Institute: "Quantum mechanics has one thing, time, which is absolute. But general relativity tells us that space and time are both dynamical so there is a big contradiction there. So the question is, can quantum gravity be formulated in a context where quantum mechanics still has absolute time?" https://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/research/conferences/convergence/roundtable-discussion-questions/what-are-lessons-quantum
The incorrect concept is, of course, Einstein’s spacetime - almost all theoreticians admit that, explicitly or implicitly.
Pentcho Valev
The answer is obvious. String theory is unverifiable, even in principle. This means maximum fraud - string theory is the absolute champion in post-truth science.
In TOE, post-truth scientists try to reconcile irreconcilable concepts - Newton’s absolute time and Einstein’s spacetime which cannot be both correct:
"The effort to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity means reconciling totally different notions of time. In quantum mechanics, time is universal and absolute; its steady ticks dictate the evolving entanglements between particles. But in general relativity (Albert Einstein's theory of gravity), time is relative and dynamical, a dimension that's inextricably interwoven with directions X, Y and Z into a four-dimensional "space-time" fabric." https://www.quantamagazine.org/20161201-quantum-gravitys-time-problem/
Perimeter Institute: "Quantum mechanics has one thing, time, which is absolute. But general relativity tells us that space and time are both dynamical so there is a big contradiction there. So the question is, can quantum gravity be formulated in a context where quantum mechanics still has absolute time?" https://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/research/conferences/convergence/roundtable-discussion-questions/what-are-lessons-quantum
The incorrect concept is, of course, Einstein’s spacetime - almost all theoreticians admit that, explicitly or implicitly.
Pentcho Valev
JanPB
Dec 18, 2017, 7:30:59 PM12/18/17
to
On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 3:23:44 PM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> “String theory (or, more technically, M-theory) is often described as the leading candidate for the theory of everything in our universe.
Guesswork time: my guess is it won't work as they key seems to be somehow
> “String theory (or, more technically, M-theory) is often described as the leading candidate for the theory of everything in our universe.
making space and time into "substances" which is something AFAIK no current
theory does.
> But there’s no empirical evidence for it, or for any alternative ideas about how gravity might unify with the rest of the fundamental forces. Why, then, is string/M-theory given the edge over the others?” https://www.quantamagazine.org/why-is-m-theory-the-leading-candidate-for-theory-of-everything-20171218/
>
> The answer is obvious. String theory is unverifiable, even in principle. This means maximum fraud -
Your agenda is showing.
--
Jan
mitchr...@gmail.com
Dec 18, 2017, 7:42:50 PM12/18/17
to
Space-time science has its reality.
mlwo...@wp.pl
Dec 19, 2017, 12:27:44 AM12/19/17
to
brainwashed fools.
Pentcho Valev
Dec 19, 2017, 3:15:04 AM12/19/17
to
By reconciling Newton’s absolute time and Einstein’s idiotic spacetime for more than half a century, post-truth scientists have made science deeply schizophrenic. Nowadays they don’t want to live in the schizophrenic world they have created and leave the sinking ship:
John Baez: "Should I be thinking about quantum gravity? One of the big problems in physics - perhaps the biggest! - is figuring out how our two current best theories fit together. On the one hand we have the Standard Model, which tries to explain all the forces except gravity, and takes quantum mechanics into account. On the other hand we have General Relativity, which tries to explain gravity, and does not take quantum mechanics into account. Both theories seem to be more or less on the right track - but until we somehow fit them together, or completely discard one or both, our picture of the world will be deeply schizophrenic. [...] So, I eventually decided to quit working on quantum gravity." https://www.edge.org/response-detail/11356
http://c6.quickcachr.fotos.sapo.pt/i/Bb713bb56/15112108_dBrrH.png
Pentcho Valev
John Baez: "Should I be thinking about quantum gravity? One of the big problems in physics - perhaps the biggest! - is figuring out how our two current best theories fit together. On the one hand we have the Standard Model, which tries to explain all the forces except gravity, and takes quantum mechanics into account. On the other hand we have General Relativity, which tries to explain gravity, and does not take quantum mechanics into account. Both theories seem to be more or less on the right track - but until we somehow fit them together, or completely discard one or both, our picture of the world will be deeply schizophrenic. [...] So, I eventually decided to quit working on quantum gravity." https://www.edge.org/response-detail/11356
http://c6.quickcachr.fotos.sapo.pt/i/Bb713bb56/15112108_dBrrH.png
Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
Dec 19, 2017, 12:27:28 PM12/19/17
to
Post-truth (post-sanity) science:
David Gross (40:53): "Science is based on observation, experimentation and theoretical constructs. Its findings - facts and theories - are subject to the requirements of logic, consistency and reproducibility. Science is always tentative and must subject its tenets to experimental tests." https://m.youtube.com/watch?t=24s&v=mtDt2HPiGLA
Needless to say, David Gross's string theory has nothing to do with observation, experimentation and reproducibility. Let us see if it has anything to do with logic:
Nobel Laureate David Gross observed, "Everyone in string theory is convinced...that spacetime is doomed. But we don't know what it's replaced by." https://www.edge.org/response-detail/26563
Nima Arkani-Hamed (06:09): "Almost all of us believe that space-time doesn't really exist, space-time is doomed and has to be replaced by some more primitive building blocks." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U47kyV4TMnE
What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime... [...] The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..." https://www.edge.org/response-detail/25477
So spacetime does not exist, according to string theorists, but it is a logical consequence of Einstein's constant-speed-of-light postulate, and logic forbids the combination "true postulate, nonexistent consequence":
"Special relativity is based on the observation that the speed of light is always the same, independently of who measures it, or how fast the source of the light is moving with respect to the observer. Einstein demonstrated that as an immediate consequence, space and time can no longer be independent, but should rather be considered a new joint entity called "spacetime." http://community.bowdoin.edu/news/2015/04/professor-baumgarte-describes-100-years-of-gravity/
Since string theorists believe that Einstein's constant-speed-of-light postulate is true, even though it entails a nonexistent consequence, their "science" has nothing to do with logic as well. Like all Einsteinians, string theorists are doublethinkers:
"Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and hence of guilt. Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably necessary." https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwell/george/o79n/chapter2.9.html
Pentcho Valev
David Gross (40:53): "Science is based on observation, experimentation and theoretical constructs. Its findings - facts and theories - are subject to the requirements of logic, consistency and reproducibility. Science is always tentative and must subject its tenets to experimental tests." https://m.youtube.com/watch?t=24s&v=mtDt2HPiGLA
Needless to say, David Gross's string theory has nothing to do with observation, experimentation and reproducibility. Let us see if it has anything to do with logic:
Nobel Laureate David Gross observed, "Everyone in string theory is convinced...that spacetime is doomed. But we don't know what it's replaced by." https://www.edge.org/response-detail/26563
Nima Arkani-Hamed (06:09): "Almost all of us believe that space-time doesn't really exist, space-time is doomed and has to be replaced by some more primitive building blocks." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U47kyV4TMnE
What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime... [...] The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..." https://www.edge.org/response-detail/25477
So spacetime does not exist, according to string theorists, but it is a logical consequence of Einstein's constant-speed-of-light postulate, and logic forbids the combination "true postulate, nonexistent consequence":
"Special relativity is based on the observation that the speed of light is always the same, independently of who measures it, or how fast the source of the light is moving with respect to the observer. Einstein demonstrated that as an immediate consequence, space and time can no longer be independent, but should rather be considered a new joint entity called "spacetime." http://community.bowdoin.edu/news/2015/04/professor-baumgarte-describes-100-years-of-gravity/
Since string theorists believe that Einstein's constant-speed-of-light postulate is true, even though it entails a nonexistent consequence, their "science" has nothing to do with logic as well. Like all Einsteinians, string theorists are doublethinkers:
"Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and hence of guilt. Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably necessary." https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwell/george/o79n/chapter2.9.html
Pentcho Valev
JanPB
Dec 19, 2017, 4:53:44 PM12/19/17
to
On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 12:15:04 AM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> By reconciling Newton’s absolute time and Einstein’s idiotic spacetime for more than half a century, post-truth scientists have
Not even wrong.
> By reconciling Newton’s absolute time and Einstein’s idiotic spacetime for more than half a century, post-truth scientists have
--
Jan
JanPB
Dec 19, 2017, 4:54:46 PM12/19/17
to
On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 9:27:28 AM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Post-truth (post-sanity) science:
>
> David Gross (40:53): "Science is based on observation, experimentation and theoretical constructs. Its findings - facts and theories - are subject to the requirements of logic, consistency and reproducibility. Science is always tentative and must subject its tenets to experimental tests." https://m.youtube.com/watch?t=24s&v=mtDt2HPiGLA
>
> Needless to say, David Gross's string theory has nothing to do with observation, experimentation and reproducibility. Let us see if it has anything to do with logic:
Not even wrong. You are basing your entire argument by pop-sci videos and
> Post-truth (post-sanity) science:
>
> David Gross (40:53): "Science is based on observation, experimentation and theoretical constructs. Its findings - facts and theories - are subject to the requirements of logic, consistency and reproducibility. Science is always tentative and must subject its tenets to experimental tests." https://m.youtube.com/watch?t=24s&v=mtDt2HPiGLA
>
> Needless to say, David Gross's string theory has nothing to do with observation, experimentation and reproducibility. Let us see if it has anything to do with logic:
articles. This is a waste of your time.
--
Jan
mitchr...@gmail.com
Dec 19, 2017, 5:04:44 PM12/19/17
to
Some people want to get rid of space to be right.
Some people want to get rid of time...
Someone told me there is no gravity.
The atheists say there is no creation...
Space and time orders of orientation were Einstein's method of genius.
Claiming they are not real is not smart. They are just not relative.
Mitchell Raemsch
Pentcho Valev
Dec 19, 2017, 5:31:47 PM12/19/17
to
"Splitting Time from Space - New Quantum Theory Topples Einstein's Spacetime. Buzz about a quantum gravity theory that sends space and time back to their Newtonian roots. Was Newton right and Einstein wrong? It seems that unzipping the fabric of spacetime and harking back to 19th-century notions of time could lead to a theory of quantum gravity. [...] But now Petr Hořava, a physicist at the University of California, Berkeley, thinks he understands the problem. It's all, he says, a matter of time. More specifically, the problem is the way that time is tied up with space in Einstein's theory of gravity: general relativity. Einstein famously overturned the Newtonian notion that time is absolute - steadily ticking away in the background. Instead he argued that time is another dimension, woven together with space to form a malleable fabric that is distorted by matter. The snag is that in quantum mechanics, time retains its Newtonian aloofness, providing the stage against which matter dances but never being affected by its presence. These two conceptions of time don't gel." https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/splitting-time-from-space/
Time is tied up with space in Einstein's SPECIAL relativity, not in "Einstein's theory of gravity: general relativity":
"Special relativity is based on the observation that the speed of light is always the same, independently of who measures it, or how fast the source of the light is moving with respect to the observer. Einstein demonstrated that as an immediate consequence, space and time can no longer be independent, but should rather be considered a new joint entity called "spacetime."x http://community.bowdoin.edu/news/2015/04/professor-baumgarte-describes-100-years-of-gravity/
So "splitting time from space" presupposes declaring that the underlying premise that ties time to space, Einstein's constant-speed-of-light postulate, is false.
Pentcho Valev
Time is tied up with space in Einstein's SPECIAL relativity, not in "Einstein's theory of gravity: general relativity":
"Special relativity is based on the observation that the speed of light is always the same, independently of who measures it, or how fast the source of the light is moving with respect to the observer. Einstein demonstrated that as an immediate consequence, space and time can no longer be independent, but should rather be considered a new joint entity called "spacetime."x http://community.bowdoin.edu/news/2015/04/professor-baumgarte-describes-100-years-of-gravity/
So "splitting time from space" presupposes declaring that the underlying premise that ties time to space, Einstein's constant-speed-of-light postulate, is false.
Pentcho Valev
mlwo...@wp.pl
Dec 20, 2017, 12:32:16 AM12/20/17
to
On Tuesday, 19 December 2017 23:04:44 UTC+1, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 9:27:44 PM UTC-8, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 19 December 2017 01:42:50 UTC+1, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 4:30:59 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote:
> > > > On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 3:23:44 PM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > > > > “String theory (or, more technically, M-theory) is often described as the leading candidate for the theory of everything in our universe.
> > > >
> > > > Guesswork time: my guess is it won't work as they key seems to be somehow
> > > > making space and time into "substances" which is something AFAIK no current
> > > > theory does.
> > > >
> > > > > But there’s no empirical evidence for it, or for any alternative ideas about how gravity might unify with the rest of the fundamental forces. Why, then, is string/M-theory given the edge over the others?” https://www.quantamagazine.org/why-is-m-theory-the-leading-candidate-for-theory-of-everything-20171218/
> > > > >
> > > > > The answer is obvious. String theory is unverifiable, even in principle. This means maximum fraud -
> > > >
> > > > This is a total misrepresentation of the situation, FAPP you are simply lying.
> > > > Your agenda is showing.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Jan
> > >
> > > Silly string!
> > >
> > > Space-time science has its reality.
> >
> > But it's only a reality imagined by a bunch of
> > brainwashed fools.
>
> Denial is having to get rid of reality.
> Some people want to get rid of space to be right.
> Some people want to get rid of time...
Like your idiot guru, for instance.
> On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 9:27:44 PM UTC-8, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 19 December 2017 01:42:50 UTC+1, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 4:30:59 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote:
> > > > On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 3:23:44 PM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > > > > “String theory (or, more technically, M-theory) is often described as the leading candidate for the theory of everything in our universe.
> > > >
> > > > Guesswork time: my guess is it won't work as they key seems to be somehow
> > > > making space and time into "substances" which is something AFAIK no current
> > > > theory does.
> > > >
> > > > > But there’s no empirical evidence for it, or for any alternative ideas about how gravity might unify with the rest of the fundamental forces. Why, then, is string/M-theory given the edge over the others?” https://www.quantamagazine.org/why-is-m-theory-the-leading-candidate-for-theory-of-everything-20171218/
> > > > >
> > > > > The answer is obvious. String theory is unverifiable, even in principle. This means maximum fraud -
> > > >
> > > > This is a total misrepresentation of the situation, FAPP you are simply lying.
> > > > Your agenda is showing.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Jan
> > >
> > > Silly string!
> > >
> > > Space-time science has its reality.
> >
> > But it's only a reality imagined by a bunch of
> > brainwashed fools.
>
> Denial is having to get rid of reality.
> Some people want to get rid of space to be right.
> Some people want to get rid of time...
> Space and time orders of orientation were Einstein's method of genius.
Edwin Huckabee
Dec 20, 2017, 11:49:13 AM12/20/17
to
JanPB wrote:
>> Needless to say, David Gross's string theory has nothing to do with
>> observation, experimentation and reproducibility. Let us see if it has
>> anything to do with logic:
>
> Not even wrong. You are basing your entire argument by pop-sci videos
> and articles. This is a waste of your time.
A length contraction is assumed, not reproducible. You reproduce the
>> Needless to say, David Gross's string theory has nothing to do with
>> observation, experimentation and reproducibility. Let us see if it has
>> anything to do with logic:
>
> Not even wrong. You are basing your entire argument by pop-sci videos
> and articles. This is a waste of your time.
assumption, that' all.
Pentcho Valev
Dec 20, 2017, 7:49:16 PM12/20/17
to
The following two quotations suggest that, if the speed of light is variable, modern physics is a dead science:
"The speaker Joao Magueijo, is a Reader in Theoretical Physics at Imperial College, London and author of Faster Than the Speed of Light: The Story of a Scientific Speculation. He opened by explaining how Einstein's theory of relativity is the foundation of every other theory in modern physics and that the assumption that the speed of light is constant is the foundation of that theory. Thus a constant speed of light is embedded in all of modern physics and to propose a varying speed of light (VSL) is worse than swearing! It is like proposing a language without vowels." http://www.thegreatdebate.org.uk/VSLRevPrnt.html
"But the researchers said they spent a lot of time working on a theory that wouldn't destabilise our understanding of physics. "The whole of physics is predicated on the constancy of the speed of light," Joao Magueijo told Motherboard. "So we had to find ways to change the speed of light without wrecking the whole thing too much." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/12/06/speed-light-discovered/
The fact that the speed of light VARIES with the speed of the observer is as obvious as 2+2=4 (Einstein's nonsensical conclusion that it doesn't is equivalent to Big Brother's 2+2=5):
"Doppler effect - when an observer moves towards a stationary source. ...the velocity of the wave relative to the observer is faster than that when it is still." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE
"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." http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp06/class19/class19_doppler.html
"Vo is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + Vo. [...] The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time." http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php
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:
Stationary receiver: http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_static.gif
Moving receiver: http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_detector_blue.gif
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." [END OF QUOTATION]
"Four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses" means that the speed of the pulses relative to the moving receiver is greater than their speed relative to the source, in violation of Einstein's relativity.
Leonard: "I know I said physics is dead, but it is the opposite of dead. If anything, it is undead, like a zombie." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDNP9KOEdh0
Pentcho Valev
"The speaker Joao Magueijo, is a Reader in Theoretical Physics at Imperial College, London and author of Faster Than the Speed of Light: The Story of a Scientific Speculation. He opened by explaining how Einstein's theory of relativity is the foundation of every other theory in modern physics and that the assumption that the speed of light is constant is the foundation of that theory. Thus a constant speed of light is embedded in all of modern physics and to propose a varying speed of light (VSL) is worse than swearing! It is like proposing a language without vowels." http://www.thegreatdebate.org.uk/VSLRevPrnt.html
"But the researchers said they spent a lot of time working on a theory that wouldn't destabilise our understanding of physics. "The whole of physics is predicated on the constancy of the speed of light," Joao Magueijo told Motherboard. "So we had to find ways to change the speed of light without wrecking the whole thing too much." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/12/06/speed-light-discovered/
The fact that the speed of light VARIES with the speed of the observer is as obvious as 2+2=4 (Einstein's nonsensical conclusion that it doesn't is equivalent to Big Brother's 2+2=5):
"Doppler effect - when an observer moves towards a stationary source. ...the velocity of the wave relative to the observer is faster than that when it is still." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE
"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." http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp06/class19/class19_doppler.html
"Vo is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + Vo. [...] The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time." http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php
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:
Stationary receiver: http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_static.gif
Moving receiver: http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_detector_blue.gif
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." [END OF QUOTATION]
"Four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses" means that the speed of the pulses relative to the moving receiver is greater than their speed relative to the source, in violation of Einstein's relativity.
Leonard: "I know I said physics is dead, but it is the opposite of dead. If anything, it is undead, like a zombie." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDNP9KOEdh0
Pentcho Valev
JanPB
Dec 20, 2017, 10:46:16 PM12/20/17
to
On Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 4:49:16 PM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> The following two quotations suggest that, if the speed of light is variable, modern physics is a dead science:
> The following two quotations suggest that, if the speed of light is variable, modern physics is a dead science:
0 new messages