Einstein's Relativity and the Wavelength of Light

[Pentcho Valev]

The principle of relativity says that frequency, wavelength and speed of light, as measured by the emitter, do not vary with the speed of the emitter. Yet explanations of the Doppler effect implicitly suggest that the wavelength does vary at the emitter:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=xsVxC_NR64M

https://youtu.be/3mJTRXCMU6o?t=77

Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 3: "Now imagine a source of light at a constant distance from us, such as a star, emitting waves of light at a constant wavelength. Obviously the wavelength of the waves we receive will be the same as the wavelength at which they are emitted (the gravitational field of the galaxy will not be large enough to have a significant effect). Suppose now that the source starts moving toward us. When the source emits the next wave crest it will be nearer to us, so the distance between wave crests will be smaller than when the star was stationary." http://www.fisica.net/relatividade/stephen_hawking_a_brief_history_of_time.pdf

Einsteinians have a problem here. They accept the principle of relativity and agree that the wavelength of light, as measured by the emitter, does not vary with the speed of the emitter. On the other hand, as measured by the observer/receiver, the wavelength SHOULD vary with the speed of the emitter (otherwise the speed of light is variable, not constant). So the theory effectively says that the wavelength variation is undiscoverable initially, when it is created at the emitter, and becomes discoverable only by the observer/receiver, at the end of the light travel. This is obviously idiotic and extremely dangerous - could be exposed by any sane person. Einsteinians camouflage the idiocy at the expense of an apparent violation of the principle of relativity - they present the wavelength as varying at the emitter. Some danger remains but it is immeasurably smaller.

Pentcho Valev https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

The idea that the wavelength changes with relative motion is ad hoc and has never been proven. It is an absurd attempt to pretend the speed of light does not vary ACROSS reference frames.

[Tom Roberts]

On 5/29/23 10:45 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> The idea that the wavelength changes with relative motion is ad hoc
> and has never been proven.

Nonsense! The annual Doppler effect shows that the measured wavelength
of every monochromatic light beam from distant astronomical objects
varies as the earth and observer orbit the sun. In SR and GR this is not
due to any effect on the light, but rather is due to the varying
orientations in spacetime of the measuring instrument, and the fact that
the instrument necessarily projects whatever it is measuring onto itself.

Moreover, this variation in wavelength is not "ad hoc", it is predicted
by the best model we have for such light beams, classical
electrodynamics, and confirmed by many experiments and measurements.

With everything you write, you merely display your comprehensive
ignorance of basic physics.

Tom Roberts

[Pentcho Valev]

On Tuesday, May 30, 2023 at 6:21:39 AM UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote:

> The annual Doppler effect shows that the measured wavelength
> of every monochromatic light beam from distant astronomical objects
> varies as the earth and observer orbit the sun. In SR and GR this is not
> due to any effect on the light, but rather is due to the varying
> orientations in spacetime of the measuring instrument, and the fact that
> the instrument necessarily projects whatever it is measuring onto itself.

Honest Roberts, this is too idiotic even by the standards of the Einstein Cult. Brothers Einsteinians will never accept you in the Brotherhood.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

It's a speaking in tongues.

[Ross Finlayson]

There's those "beams" again, ....

I really think there's something about the optical in the "Fresnel imaging"
where the objects with small wavelengths / big bodies somehow make for
"lensing in the large", as what accompanies caustics and such in lensing,
"gravitational".

I'm sort of wondering what "Pioneer Anomaly" is these days.

[Jane]

On Mon, 29 May 2023 22:21:26 -0600, Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 5/29/23 10:45 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>> The idea that the wavelength changes with relative motion is ad hoc and
>> has never been proven.
>
> Nonsense! The annual Doppler effect shows that the measured wavelength
> of every monochromatic light beam from distant astronomical objects
> varies as the earth and observer orbit the sun. In SR and GR this is not
> due to any effect on the light, but rather is due to the varying
> orientations in spacetime of the measuring instrument, and the fact that
> the instrument necessarily projects whatever it is measuring onto
> itself.

In any valid form of physical analysis, the observer must not and cannot
affect the observed.

> Moreover, this variation in wavelength is not "ad hoc", it is predicted
> by the best model we have for such light beams, classical
> electrodynamics, and confirmed by many experiments and measurements.

poor little Tommy thinks the spacing of ocean waves has a different value
for every boat.

> With everything you write, you merely display your comprehensive
> ignorance of basic physics.

Tommy has a head full of SciFi equations but very little basic physics.
He cannot even understand the simple travelling wave equation.

> Tom Roberts





--
-- lover of truth

[Buddie Romeijn]

Jane wrote:

>> Nonsense! The annual Doppler effect shows that the measured wavelength
>> of every monochromatic light beam from distant astronomical objects
>> varies as the earth and observer orbit the sun. In SR and GR this is
>> not due to any effect on the light, but rather is due to the varying
>> orientations in spacetime of the measuring instrument, and the fact
>> that the instrument necessarily projects whatever it is measuring onto
>> itself.
>
> In any valid form of physical analysis, the observer must not and cannot
> affect the observed.

you too must be coming from Moldova.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

The only people who understand relativity are those who recognize it is purely self-contradictory nonsense.

[whodat]

On 6/2/2023 6:08 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

<...>

> The only people who understand relativity are those
> who recognize it is purely self-contradictory nonsense.

So would you mind explaining to me what it is that relativity
is supposed to explain and provide me with some alternative
that works better. Bear in mind that I am neither supportive
of relativity nor am I denying its usefulness. Thanks.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

You could read the thousands of books and articles by critics of relativity and find out it is entirely unnecessary and will fall by the wayside. Here is an example from an article co-authored by Tom Van Flandern and another author: "At the other extreme, Feynman preserves the force and motion concepts with their classical meanings, and comments: ‘‘It is one of the
peculiar aspects of the theory of gravitation, that it has both a field interpretation and a geometrical interpretation. ... the fact is that a spin-two
field has this geometrical interpretation: this is not something readily explainable—it is just marvelous. The geometrical interpretation is not
really necessary or essential to physics.’’" So this part of relativity is unnecessary.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 4:23:30 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:

The idea that a better alternative is necessary to supersede relativity is incorrect since it is of no value and will be discarded entirely. For example, as Richard Hertz has shown, there is no mass velocity relationship even on the micro level. For example, the equivalence principle is vacuous nonsense. Newton said he did not feign hypotheses, meaning he did not pretend to explain the cause of gravity. Einstein did pretend to explain its cause and failed entirely.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 4:23:30 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:

For example, the Sagnac effect technology does not require any relativistic calculations because it only involves ordinary additive velocities.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 4:23:30 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:

It is unnecessary to explain the null result of the MMX as Pentcho Valev has shown and as you can verify by using simple additive velocity calculations as in ballistics.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 4:23:30 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:

The eclipse experiment is supposed to have predicted a doubling of the Newtonian deflection, yet the Pound Snider has demonstrated Newtonian, so which is it? It has to be one or the other. Really the double-deflection prediction was not based on any sound reasoning and the eclipse experiments remained debatable until the radio waves allegedly proved that electromagnetism is deflected by gravity. That is also very doubtful and better explained by refraction. The muons are better explained by a longer life in nature than a laboratory, as made clear recently by Richard Hertz. Time dilation is an absurd ad hoc concept that remains unproven because time= distance over speed as in 2 hours= 60 miles/30 mph, so changing the time to keep the speed constant is just lying with the language of mathematics.

[Ross Finlayson]

Been reading some of this Earman about singularities and Wald
about quantum field theory in curved ("blobbed") space-times.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

Singularities and curved space-time are fiction.

[Ross Finlayson]

No thanks, I'm not a fictionalist.

I'm a formalist - not a fictionalist.

I think it's closed-minded to be a, "retro-finitist".

Energy is the great medium of exchange, but there are lots
of milieus and regimes, though from not so much,
the kinetic and charge, and the optical and radionuclear.

The wave/particle duality of course is a great fundamental
abstraction of discretization of the continuous.

I think that space-time is "curving" in "dynamics",
flat in statics, curving in dynamics.

Of course the dynamics at speed make statics -
anyways this "quantum field theory and singularities",
has that, just like the origin, is everywhere,
the origin is a singularity, about the impulse.

(These are "Einstein's everywhere singularities the white holes".)

It's kind of like about tossing a ball, up and down,
or in a curve, or, back-and-forth.

Anyways the "well" and the "wall" has for where singularities
have two sides of the wall: the curved side and the flat side.

You know, anything written as a symmetry and a conservation
about an invariant, also has a writing as a continuity, and a boundary.

[Ross Finlayson]

Hm..., "blobbed" in "space-time" is already a word, ....

http://www.physics.ntua.gr/corfu2021/Program/nc.pdf
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1612.04624
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11040-021-09390-6
https://inspirehep.net/literature/1950237

It's a convenient descriptive term for "space contraction" in "parallel transport".

Which are already words in "space-time".

"Blobbed magmas in space-time".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magma_(algebra)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-coalgebra
"The main related concepts are initial F-algebras
which may serve to encapsulate the induction principle,
and the dual construction F-coalgebras."


UV/IR mixing: "plasmatic magmas"? "Magmatic plasmas"?

"Nessie".

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

George Hammond makes more sense than you and at least he's amusing, not dead-pan.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

[Tom Roberts]

On 6/1/23 6:32 PM, Jane wrote:
> On Mon, 29 May 2023 22:21:26 -0600, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 5/29/23 10:45 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>> The idea that the wavelength changes with relative motion is ad
>>> hoc and has never been proven.
>> Nonsense! The annual Doppler effect shows that the measured
>> wavelength of every monochromatic light beam from distant
>> astronomical objects varies as the earth and observer orbit the
>> sun. In SR and GR this is not due to any effect on the light, but
>> rather is due to the varying orientations in spacetime of the
>> measuring instrument, and the fact that the instrument necessarily
>> projects whatever it is measuring onto itself.
>
> In any valid form of physical analysis, the observer must not and
> cannot affect the observed.

This is just plain not true. Apparently you have never heard of quantum
mechanics. But this is more general than QM.

It is important to understand how various properties of the observer
affect the measurements. The annual Doppler shift is so well known and
solidly established that all astronomical data are routinely corrected
for it before publication (because it is trivial and of no interest to
astronomers and astrophysicists).

> [... nonsense and insults omitted]

Tom Roberts

[Ross Finlayson]

So, if I point at Earman and Wald and Geroch, they're wrong, too?

There's a saying
"you can bring a horse to water,
but you can't make him drink".

(The Stetson is an iconic hat, in the lid is a liner,
the picture on the liner is a man watering his horse
with his hat. The horse drinks from the hat)

I'm kind of enjoying reading Wald, he has a great discursive and
explanatory style, including reasons and also the weights of other
reasons.

It's similar with Earman, he presents a lot of the historical development,
and helps assign aspects and explorations of the development to the
wide range of thinkers involved, mathematicians and physicists and philosophers,
about "singularities" in physics for what are "singularities" in mathematics.

Often people will learn attaching some "examples" to definitions before they
start to understand that the definitions are examples, then about the abstraction
of mathematics and complementary rules and the rulial and regular in regimes,
it helps if they sort of have already a thorough understanding of everything.

How about the mathematics of infinity? Does that make any sense to you?

(Some have that it's indispensable for a mathematics with a continuum.)

There are various kinds of waves, for example in sound, in light,
in liquids, in electromagnetic interfaces, while a common descriptive milieu,
even just such examples as "skin effect" and "core effect" show that
there are values "x" in one model that are "1/x" in the other.

So, some of them are really "resonances", and the classical's just a sample,
and the real is really a matter of potential theory.

(The theory of potentials, the theory of sum potentials,
the theory of sigma potentials, the theory of omega potentials.)

It's said that Lefschetz founded an institute of differential geometry.


So anyways as Nessie humps across the loch, according to your senses,
what's underneath is virtual, but there are connections.

There's "wave/particle duality" and "particle/point locality" and "wave/resonance globality",
it's a continuum mechanics, with normalization ("de-re-normalization") and discretization
for tractability and common central simple terms, because of Rayleigh and Planck
and the ultraviolet catastrophe. It's a continuum mechanics.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

Let me be clear. I haven't read your comment because I don't have time for defenders of relativity. It's far more productive to read critics. To your point, if the origins of relativity are thoroughly false, so are its pinnacles.

[Ross Finlayson]

Oh. Here it's pretty well established that light's speed is a constant,
in deep space.

Einstein has a clock hypothesis and all, the relativistic dynamics of
relativistic mass of the inertial system in the rotational or cyclotron,
and space contraction, in the rotational and in the linear, is pretty well-established.

Also Einstein isn't again "Quantum Mechanics", and speaks kindly of
the Bohm-deBroglie "real wave interpretation".

The cosmological constant as vanishing is kind of a free parameter in
the regimes of running constants.

Also Einstein makes it clear "SR is local".

Then, the notions of singularity theory and invariant theory are pretty much involved
in what's these days the fundamental mathematical physics.
(... Which is a field theory in a gauge theory with a gauge in a field.)

Yeah, if you don't know about "running constants" and that NIST CODATA
regularly updates with, _smaller_ fundamental physical constants, and that
SI 2019 is basically a divorce from reality, those are things.

[Maciej Wozniak]

But in the meantime in the real world - forbidden
by your bunch of idiots "improper" clocks keep
measuring improper t'=t in improper seconds.

[Ross Finlayson]

I'm not sure, Tom (Dr. R.) has been kind of alluding to "we're talking about 4-vectors".

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

On Saturday, June 3, 2023 at 1:41:28 PM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

Lorentz also only believed in proper time. It was Einstein who took the leap and changed Lorentz' understanding that the dilated time was ad hoc to his claim it was real. Loony!

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

On Saturday, June 3, 2023 at 1:41:28 PM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

It's amusing that relativists can't understand that time isn't a spatial dimension, so it is only a metaphorical dimension. Then they represent it as a spatial dimension in a sketch and imagine they've accomplished anything.

[Androcles' Ghost]

On Sat, 03 Jun 2023 10:19:38 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 6/1/23 6:32 PM, Jane wrote:

>> In any valid form of physical analysis, the observer must not and
>> cannot affect the observed.
>
> This is just plain not true. Apparently you have never heard of quantum
> mechanics. But this is more general than QM.

The same things happen in the same way whether or not anyone observes
them. If the observer changes them then the observations are nor genuine.

> It is important to understand how various properties of the observer
> affect the measurements. The annual Doppler shift is so well known and
> solidly established that all astronomical data are routinely corrected
> for it before publication (because it is trivial and of no interest to
> astronomers and astrophysicists).

What are you talking about? No Doppler shift alters that which is being
'shifted'.

>> [... nonsense and insults omitted]
>
> Tom Roberts

--
It would be easier to teach Physics to a Ferret than a Faithful Follower
of the E-religion

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

Are you saying that Jane is a follower of Einstein? The relativists are indoctrinated in an ideology so they can't be reasoned out of it.

[Tom Roberts]

On 6/2/23 6:08 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> The only people who understand relativity are those who recognize it
> is purely self-contradictory nonsense.

The only people who make such silly claims are those who do not
understand either relativity or basic physics.

Tom Roberts

[Tom Roberts]

On 6/2/23 7:13 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> You could read the thousands of books and articles by critics of
> relativity and find out it is entirely unnecessary and will fall by

> the wayside. [...]

Such fantasies and daydreams are not going to help you understand basic
physics. Or relativity. Or much of anything.

Tom Roberts

[Tom Roberts]

On 6/2/23 7:31 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> For example, the Sagnac effect technology does not require any
> relativistic calculations because it only involves ordinary additive
> velocities.

Confusing the lowest-order analysis with the full analysis shows that
you are outrageously ignorant of basic physics.

You need to learn something about the subject before attempting to write
about it. Your GUESSES are wrong.

Tom Roberts

[Tom Roberts]

On 6/3/23 6:32 PM, Androcles' Ghost wrote:
> The same things happen in the same way whether or not anyone observes
> them.

This is simply not true for many/most quantum phenomena. But one must
understand the TECHNICAL meaning of "observe"....

Tom Roberts

[Ross Finlayson]

"Observation" always involves interference of some sort.

There are various kinds of sampling/observation/measurement effects.

In the quantum it's usually that "hidden variables" include a hidden
variable that "fluctuates" at an arbitrarily high speed and is affected
at an arbitrarily high sensitivity. Then, something like the "real wave
collapse" is affected by it.

For something like the dual slit, the wave actually does go through
both, then the sampling and building the wave-form with diffraction
really does have that it looks random, because, it's arbitrarily higher
the "disorder" that results by a law of large numbers that it appears
ordered as of sampling/measurement/observation multiple samples.

So, to explain "quantum effects" is that "the opposite of information
always propagates in hidden variables throughout the extra-local".

Then there's getting into quantum fields and the propagation of
waves.

It's sort of that probability theory demands a sort of dice-shaker,
for Einstein that "G-d does not roll dice" but for "the root probabilistic
flaw" that "G-d rolled one die, once, and it's still rolling".

[whodat]

On 6/4/2023 11:10 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On Sunday, June 4, 2023 at 8:13:52 AM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 6/3/23 6:32 PM, Androcles' Ghost wrote:
>>> The same things happen in the same way whether or not anyone observes
>>> them.
>> This is simply not true for many/most quantum phenomena. But one must
>> understand the TECHNICAL meaning of "observe"....
>>
>> Tom Roberts
>
> "Observation" always involves interference of some sort.

"What are the observational characteristics of a pulsar?

"All pulsars are identified by their characteristic emission of noise in
the form of a periodic sequence of pulses. Whilst the intensities of the
pulses may vary widely, the basic timing of the pulses is periodic and
extremely consistant, to the point that they can be used as clocks.

"Basic Observational Properties of Pulsars"

<https://www.atnf.csiro.au/outreach/education/pulseatparkes/pulsar_properties.html#:~:text=All%20pulsars%20are%20identified%20by,can%20be%20used%20as%20clocks.?

<...>

[Ross Finlayson]

Of course observables are key but "quantum anomalies" have some explanation.

The sampling/observation/measurement "effects" have that the
detector is always some interface and some exchange.

[Tom Roberts]

On 6/4/23 11:10 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On Sunday, June 4, 2023 at 8:13:52 AM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 6/3/23 6:32 PM, Androcles' Ghost wrote:
>>> The same things happen in the same way whether or not anyone
>>> observes them.
>> This is simply not true for many/most quantum phenomena. But one
>> must understand the TECHNICAL meaning of "observe"....
>

> "Observation" always involves interference of some sort.

Not at all. Observation always involves arranging so the quantity to be
observed interacts with a macroscopic object that a human could, at
least in principle, see directly. For instance, the pointer in a meter
or the display of a computer. For quantum phenomena this invariably
involves considerable amplification.

Tom Roberts

[Ross Finlayson]

Hey thanks. I read your posts as "correct, hedged", that is, not just "posts get a generous
reading for assuming they intend to be truthful and accurate and are well-informed
and reflect the reality of things" but also "in the face of the not deserving a generous
reading, it's at least a careful hedge, and can be read as firm".

Here then I deconstruct that as about both the "energy of experiment", and,
the "configuration of experiment".

Then, there's basically at least two models: one is the linear model, the classical model,
the working theory, the ensemble (...) of working theories together each subject to falsification,
all what is figured constant after the _energy_ of the experiment, all what's figured constant
after the _configuration_ of the experiment, into what result "least controlled terms" for
the "proper and correct" "design of experiment, it's a scientific thus a statistical experiment",
"classical model".

The other one is the "superclassical model". Here it's described as attaining to for example
"an entire causal model with a continuum here space-time and its contents for what's called
physics". Now, it's one thing to just say "it's a field", and it's another thing to say that "now
this field has infinite extent, but in the classical everything's local including basically the
synchrony of the entire apparatus and the detector apparatus", that it becomes that
what-all's in the _field_ (the "total" field), becomes "hidden", with respect to anything that
only has definition and its derivation in the "frame".

There's still though that the entire point of the "unified field theory" is to get everything
that's classical in the heuristic and what's the empirical model, up into some "theory of
sum potentials", where the superclassical model is still equipped with principles of
fundamentally: "least action", that the action potentials of all the fields still add up to
the classical in the meso-scale ("our scale") about the macro-scale (really meaning just
above the scale of the atomic and sub-atomic), that the "frames" and the "fields" are all
in the "potentials" their "connections" about their "actions" and thusly their "events"
that through the "scientific lens: design and control of configuration and energy of experiment,
accompanied with all the data of previous experiment", it's a point of view.

So, when there's a "philosophy of mathematical objects" that basically defines and equips
the "superclassical model", and, "philosophy of experimental science" that defines and equips
the "classical model", it's still the goal that "the mechanism" results just one there.

Then, when the model, of the objects, like "particles", which we know live in a field of
particle/wave duality, no longer "suffices" to be "complete", about "completions" and
"completeness" and "Cauchy" and "objects of arithmetics and algebras" and completeness
usually for the "continuous", there's a place for their incompleteness in the outer theory,
and it's figured that's where they live in the complete theory the mathematics', also.


I.e., there's a "super-scientific" philosophy about this, about causality and least action.
It's scientific: and largely depends on the discovery of mathematics for continuum mechanics,
for any and all matters of "completeness" (and continuity).


When I wonder about the Batavia-Baikal neutrinophone, that generates "neutrinos"
or rather "neutrinos: a flux thereof in gravitational waves", at Batavia, and, in Lake Baikal,
there's a cubic-kilometer array floating in the one of the largest remote surface freshwater
bodies of water _on the opposite side of the world_, and they tap out a code on one side
and it arrives no less than tachyonically at the other side, through the middle, it really goes
a long way toward establishing that there's a straight line through the frame.

[whodat]

You have a coin in your hand. I observe it. Tell me about the
"interference" and "exchange." Why would anyone conclude that
interference is always consequential? One thing we learn early
on in science is to ignore inconsequential results. Go back to
your earliest experiments, resistance on an inclined plane. You
were taught in that experiment to discard certain logged results.

AFAIC we should not need to have this discussion.

Please revise your statement (the one in contention) to make it
universally correct. That's all this is about with no insult
intended . Thanks.

[Ross Finlayson]

Hm. (I enjoy you and long ago became inured to Inter-sults, and none intended.)

You mean it's a standard candle?


The context is about the "quantum observable", which sort of arises from
these arranged definitions of electrons and photons or "electron physics".



You know, a fair coin toss is also called a Bernoulli trial. Now, it's necessary,
in a fair coin toss, that it lands on uneven ground, because otherwise, a sufficiently
tuned detector, for example the ear, according to the frequency of the ringing of the
spin and bringing it to a spinning state with a tone that reflects the even-ness and
odd-ness in beats since it was flipped or "tiddly winked", makes that with practice,
one can flip a coin, and, catch it, and, more than statistically reasonably, via the tuning
of the apparatus of the observation, and the timing of the capturing of the sample,
have a stronger estimate than 50/50 that the outcome of the experiment is the result
of the configuration of the experiment, and the apparatus.

(Maybe it will help to gain the dexterity, with taking a stack of quarters or chips,
and stacking them on the under-fore-arm, and then catching them in the same hand.)

About mechanical advantage of lifting an object with the assistance of an inclined plane,
let's not forget both the "static" and the "dynamic" friction, and the difference between
"constant" input and "differential" input, for example where it slides down.

(Modern roads are engineered in terms of their grade.)

The other day the popular news had this story about "wow all we knew Reynolds number
and flow dynamics in pipes is contrived about long pipes and fast flows, now we have to
figure out all these interfaces in turbidity and turbulence and blobbed magmas and for
example Latin and magic grid squares having a complete model of vorticity in otherwise
laminar flows".

Anyways an observable in an experiment is only reliable when it's reproducible.
So, when it's reproducible that it's reliable that it's observable that "hidden variables",
it goes in the theory.

The detector is always an interface and an exchange, ..., otherwise it's just the flow.

[Androcles' Ghost]

On Sat, 03 Jun 2023 15:11:09 -0700, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

> On Saturday, June 3, 2023 at 1:41:28 PM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>> On Saturday, 3 June 2023 at 19:47:45 UTC+2, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>> > On Saturday, June 3, 2023 at 10:01:06 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark
>> > Crossen wrote:
>> > > On Saturday, June 3, 2023 at 9:32:24 AM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson

>> > Oh. Here it's pretty well established that light's speed is a
>> > constant,
>> > in deep space.
>> But in the meantime in the real world - forbidden by your bunch of
>> idiots "improper" clocks keep measuring improper t'=t in improper
>> seconds.
> It's amusing that relativists can't understand that time isn't a spatial
> dimension, so it is only a metaphorical dimension. Then they represent
> it as a spatial dimension in a sketch and imagine they've accomplished
> anything.

They accomplished a lot. By defining spatial intervals in terms of 'the
distance light moves at c', they managed to stuff up the whole of Physics
for 100 years.

...and to Finlayson... It is certainly not 'well established' that light
moves at c in the whole of space. My uncle's work on variable stars (and
now my own) virtually proves that light always starts out at c+v before
apparently being progressively unified as it travels (possibly due to
photon field interaction).
Einstein's SR is nothing but a disguised Ether theory. He replaced the
Ether's fundamental role of unifying all light speeds with a mere
postulate and ended up with every observer being in possession of a
unique 'personal ether'. Hilarious!...and the Physics establishment
didn't even see the joke....

--
It would be easier to teach Physics to a Pherret than a Phaithful
Phollower of the E-religion

[Ross Finlayson]

That's because the "local" or "the space attached to the material
point" has its own velocity, light travels through that space at c.

Then it's a feature of "space-contraction" and how that applies to
variously the linear and the rotational how light behaves in
the space that is near to the bodies into space that is the
open space (the "deep space").

Yeah, that's kind of how it is, but otherwise it would have
been wrong the model of "absence of relativistic dynamics".

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

On Sunday, June 4, 2023 at 10:35:43 PM UTC-7, Androcles' Ghost wrote:

Relativity has hoodwinked physics for 100 years keeping physics in the dark. The Doppler effect giving evidence of radial velocity for stars, also provides evidence that the speed of light must be additive. Sound waves vary with the velocity of the source and so does light. Then how can light speed be "progressively unified" back to C relative to all observers at once when they move at different speeds compared to each other and to absolute space and/or ether?

[Paul Alsing]

On Sunday, June 4, 2023 at 10:35:43 PM UTC-7, Androcles' Ghost wrote:

> ... It is certainly not 'well established' that light
> moves at c in the whole of space. My uncle's work on variable stars (and
> now my own) virtually proves that light always starts out at c+v before
> apparently being progressively unified as it travels (possibly due to
> photon field interaction).

There is zero evidence to support this claim that "light always starts out at c+v", and John Parker never proved a darn thing. His theory about Cepheid variables is laughable. Also, any actual physicist knows that no theory in physics can ever be proven to be true, and to claim otherwise only goes to reinforce that you are ignorant of the subject matter. You can't expect to just make it up as you go along and not be challenged to provide actual evidence... which you clearly cannot provide.

You should accelerate your plan to leave this forum since it is clear that you are just trolling...

[Androcles' Ghost]

On Sun, 04 Jun 2023 23:11:31 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote:

> On Sunday, June 4, 2023 at 10:35:43 PM UTC-7, Androcles' Ghost wrote:
>> On Sat, 03 Jun 2023 15:11:09 -0700, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
tivists can't understand that time isn't a
>> > spatial dimension, so it is only a metaphorical dimension. Then they
>> > represent it as a spatial dimension in a sketch and imagine they've
>> > accomplished anything.
>> They accomplished a lot. By defining spatial intervals in terms of 'the
>> distance light moves at c', they managed to stuff up the whole of
>> Physics for 100 years.
>>
>> ...and to Finlayson... It is certainly not 'well established' that
>> light moves at c in the whole of space. My uncle's work on variable
>> stars (and now my own) virtually proves that light always starts out at
>> c+v before apparently being progressively unified as it travels
>> (possibly due to photon field interaction).
>> Einstein's SR is nothing but a disguised Ether theory. He replaced the
>> Ether's fundamental role of unifying all light speeds with a mere
>> postulate and ended up with every observer being in possession of a
>> unique 'personal ether'. Hilarious!...and the Physics establishment
>> didn't even see the joke....

Posting your crap achieves nothing.

[Androcles' Ghost]

On Mon, 05 Jun 2023 08:46:04 -0700, Paul Alsing wrote:

> On Sunday, June 4, 2023 at 10:35:43 PM UTC-7, Androcles' Ghost wrote:
>
>> ... It is certainly not 'well established' that light moves at c in the
>> whole of space. My uncle's work on variable stars (and now my own)
>> virtually proves that light always starts out at c+v before apparently
>> being progressively unified as it travels (possibly due to photon field
>> interaction).
>
> There is zero evidence to support this claim that "light always starts
> out at c+v", and John Parker never proved a darn thing. His theory about
> Cepheid variables is laughable.

There is no evidence that light moves at anything but c relative to its
source. ...and I have been looking into the variable star business myself
along with a few others. Looks like Uncle John was dead right.

> Also, any actual physicist knows that no
> theory in physics can ever be proven to be true, and to claim otherwise
> only goes to reinforce that you are ignorant of the subject matter.

So you don't think it is 100% true that lightning is made of
electricity? Do you still think Thor had something to do with it?

>You can't expect to just make it up as you go along and not be
> challenged to
> provide actual evidence... which you clearly cannot provide.
>
> You should accelerate your plan to leave this forum since it is clear
> that you are just trolling...

I'm having too much fun. It is a boost to my ego witnessing first hand
the stupidity of Einstein worshippers.





--
A Phurry Pherret could Learn Physics Phaster than a Phaithful Phollower
of the E-religion

[Ross Finlayson]

It seems ilke the extinction theorem kind of is the observable
for how much space is being carried along in space-contraction,
and what happens when the light arrives back in a milieu of
regular space-contraction.

[Ross Finlayson]

It's like "why is the sky blue".

Well, you unify field theory, ...,
including QM and GR and local SR,
then it results an aggregate in space-contraction explained by Doppler.

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

Why isn't the bottom of the atmosphere blue?
Scattering blue does not change it at all.
The sky glows blue. It is emitting blue
and is building in the distance.
Looking out of an airplane window
you don't see blue next to you either.
Only in the distance building up.

[Volney]

On 6/6/2023 10:05 PM, Androcles' Ghost wrote:
> Looks like Uncle John was dead right.

No, your Uncle John is just dead.

[Python]

Jane and Laurence are obvious trolls; I bet the same person.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

We're twins.

[Python]

I knew you were relative :-)

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

Everything is...

[Python]

Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 1:40:27 PM UTC-7, Python wrote:
>> Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 1:33:23 PM UTC-7, Python wrote:
>>>> Volney wrote:
>>>>> On 6/6/2023 10:05 PM, Androcles' Ghost wrote:
>>>>>> Looks like Uncle John was dead right.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, your Uncle John is just dead.
>>>>>
>>>> Jane and Laurence are obvious trolls; I bet the same person.
>>> We're twins.
>> I knew you were relative :-)
> Everything is...

Indeed.

[Richard Hachel]

Jane is 18, Lauurence is 30.

R.H.

[Python]

You missed the point, didn't you?

See you next Wednesday.

[RichD]

On June 13, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>> We're twins.
>
>> I knew you were relative :-)
>
> Everything is...

Well, since every human is descended from a single female -
Eve - and a single male - Adam - we're all cousins -

--
Rich