info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
EINSTEINIANA: TWO CRUCIAL QUESTIONS
4 views
Skip to first unread message
Pentcho Valev
May 16, 2012, 2:28:55 AM5/16/12
to
QUESTION 1: The frequency of light (as measured by the observer) varies with the speed of the observer. Does this mean that the speed of light (as measured by the observer) also varies with the speed of the observer, in violation of Einstein's special relativity?
Clues:
http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php
"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://www.expo-db.be/ExposPrecedentes/Expo/Ondes/fichiers%20son/Effet%20Doppler.pdf
"La variation de la fréquence observée lorsqu'il y a mouvement relatif entre la source et l'observateur est appelée effet Doppler. (...) 6. Source immobile - Observateur en mouvement: La distance entre les crêtes, la longueur d'onde lambda ne change pas. Mais la vitesse des crêtes par rapport à l'observateur change !"
http://www.usna.edu/Users/physics/mungan/Scholarship/DopplerEffect.pdf
Carl Mungan: "Consider the case where the observer moves toward the source. In this case, the observer is rushing head-long into the wavefronts... (...) In fact, the wave speed is simply increased by the observer speed, as we can see by jumping into the observer's frame of reference."
http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/roger/PHYS10302/lecture18.pdf
Roger Barlow, Professor of Particle Physics: "Moving Observer. Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer is moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/(lambda) waves pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/(lambda). So f'=(c+v)/(lambda)."
http://www.cmmp.ucl.ac.uk/~ahh/teaching/1B24n/lect19.pdf
Tony Harker, University College London: "If the observer moves with a speed Vo away from the source (...), then in a time t the number of waves which reach the observer are those in a distance (c-Vo)t, so the number of waves observed is (c-Vo)t/lambda, giving an observed frequency f'=f((c-Vo)/c) when the observer is moving away from the source at a speed Vo."
http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler
Albert Einstein Institute: "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 [that is, the speed of light as measured by the receiver is (4/3)c]."
QUESTION 2: The frequency of light falling in a gravitational field increases in accordance with the equation f'=f(1+gh/c^2), as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light. Does this mean that the speed of light also increases, in accordance with another prediction of the emission theory, c'=c(1+gh/c^2)?
Clues:
http://online.physics.uiuc.edu/courses/phys419/spring10/lectures/Lecture13/L13r.html
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object. ITS SPEED INCREASES AS IT IS FALLING. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as it falls to earth. Because of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass, WE SHOULD OBSERVE THE SAME EFFECT FOR LIGHT. So lets shine a light beam from the top of a very tall building. If we can measure the frequency shift as the light beam descends the building, we should be able to discern how gravity affects a falling light beam. This was done by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They shone a light from the top of the Jefferson tower at Harvard and measured the frequency shift. The frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the theoretical prediction."
http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/redshift_white_dwarfs
Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices."
http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0403/0403082.pdf
The Gravitational Red-Shift, R.F.Evans and J.Dunning-Davies, Department of Physics, University of Hull: "Attention is drawn to the fact that the well-known expression for the red-shift of spectral lines due to a gravitational field may be derived with no recourse to the theory of general relativity. This raises grave doubts over the inclusion of the measurement of this gravitational red-shift in the list of crucial tests of the theory of general relativity. (...) In truth, it would seem that the result for the red-shift of spectral lines due to the action of a gravitational field has nothing specifically to do with the theory of general relativity. It is a result which draws on more modern results due to such as Planck and Poincaré, but, apart from those, is deduced from notions of Newtonian mechanics alone."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixhczNygcWo
"Relativity 3 - gravity and light"
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/hsr1000/lecturenotes12_02.pdf
Harvey Reall, University of Cambridge: "...light falls in the gravitational field in exactly the same way as a massive test particle."
http://sethi.lamar.edu/bahrim-cristian/Courses/PHYS4480/4480-PROBLEMS/optics-gravit-lens_PPT.pdf
Dr. Cristian Bahrim: "If we accept the principle of equivalence, we must also accept that light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as material bodies."
http://membres.multimania.fr/juvastro/calculs/einstein.pdf
"Le principe d'équivalence, un des fondements de base de la relativité générale prédit que dans un champ gravitationnel, la lumière tombe comme tout corps matériel selon l'acceleration de la pesanteur."
http://www.wfu.edu/~brehme/space.htm
Robert W. Brehme: "Light falls in a gravitational field just as do material objects."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Clues:
http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php
"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://www.expo-db.be/ExposPrecedentes/Expo/Ondes/fichiers%20son/Effet%20Doppler.pdf
"La variation de la fréquence observée lorsqu'il y a mouvement relatif entre la source et l'observateur est appelée effet Doppler. (...) 6. Source immobile - Observateur en mouvement: La distance entre les crêtes, la longueur d'onde lambda ne change pas. Mais la vitesse des crêtes par rapport à l'observateur change !"
http://www.usna.edu/Users/physics/mungan/Scholarship/DopplerEffect.pdf
Carl Mungan: "Consider the case where the observer moves toward the source. In this case, the observer is rushing head-long into the wavefronts... (...) In fact, the wave speed is simply increased by the observer speed, as we can see by jumping into the observer's frame of reference."
http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/roger/PHYS10302/lecture18.pdf
Roger Barlow, Professor of Particle Physics: "Moving Observer. Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer is moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/(lambda) waves pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/(lambda). So f'=(c+v)/(lambda)."
http://www.cmmp.ucl.ac.uk/~ahh/teaching/1B24n/lect19.pdf
Tony Harker, University College London: "If the observer moves with a speed Vo away from the source (...), then in a time t the number of waves which reach the observer are those in a distance (c-Vo)t, so the number of waves observed is (c-Vo)t/lambda, giving an observed frequency f'=f((c-Vo)/c) when the observer is moving away from the source at a speed Vo."
http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler
Albert Einstein Institute: "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 [that is, the speed of light as measured by the receiver is (4/3)c]."
QUESTION 2: The frequency of light falling in a gravitational field increases in accordance with the equation f'=f(1+gh/c^2), as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light. Does this mean that the speed of light also increases, in accordance with another prediction of the emission theory, c'=c(1+gh/c^2)?
Clues:
http://online.physics.uiuc.edu/courses/phys419/spring10/lectures/Lecture13/L13r.html
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object. ITS SPEED INCREASES AS IT IS FALLING. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as it falls to earth. Because of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass, WE SHOULD OBSERVE THE SAME EFFECT FOR LIGHT. So lets shine a light beam from the top of a very tall building. If we can measure the frequency shift as the light beam descends the building, we should be able to discern how gravity affects a falling light beam. This was done by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They shone a light from the top of the Jefferson tower at Harvard and measured the frequency shift. The frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the theoretical prediction."
http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/redshift_white_dwarfs
Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices."
http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0403/0403082.pdf
The Gravitational Red-Shift, R.F.Evans and J.Dunning-Davies, Department of Physics, University of Hull: "Attention is drawn to the fact that the well-known expression for the red-shift of spectral lines due to a gravitational field may be derived with no recourse to the theory of general relativity. This raises grave doubts over the inclusion of the measurement of this gravitational red-shift in the list of crucial tests of the theory of general relativity. (...) In truth, it would seem that the result for the red-shift of spectral lines due to the action of a gravitational field has nothing specifically to do with the theory of general relativity. It is a result which draws on more modern results due to such as Planck and Poincaré, but, apart from those, is deduced from notions of Newtonian mechanics alone."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixhczNygcWo
"Relativity 3 - gravity and light"
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/hsr1000/lecturenotes12_02.pdf
Harvey Reall, University of Cambridge: "...light falls in the gravitational field in exactly the same way as a massive test particle."
http://sethi.lamar.edu/bahrim-cristian/Courses/PHYS4480/4480-PROBLEMS/optics-gravit-lens_PPT.pdf
Dr. Cristian Bahrim: "If we accept the principle of equivalence, we must also accept that light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as material bodies."
http://membres.multimania.fr/juvastro/calculs/einstein.pdf
"Le principe d'équivalence, un des fondements de base de la relativité générale prédit que dans un champ gravitationnel, la lumière tombe comme tout corps matériel selon l'acceleration de la pesanteur."
http://www.wfu.edu/~brehme/space.htm
Robert W. Brehme: "Light falls in a gravitational field just as do material objects."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
alie...@gmail.com
May 16, 2012, 4:38:28 AM5/16/12
to
On May 15, 11:28 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> QUESTION 1: The frequency of light (as measured by the observer) varies with the speed of the observer. Does this mean that the speed of light (as measured by the observer) also varies with the speed of the observer, in violation of Einstein's special relativity?
>
> QUESTION 1: The frequency of light (as measured by the observer) varies with the speed of the observer. Does this mean that the speed of light (as measured by the observer) also varies with the speed of the observer, in violation of Einstein's special relativity?
>
> QUESTION 2: The frequency of light falling in a gravitational field increases in accordance with the equation f'=f(1+gh/c^2), as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light. Does this mean that the speed of light also increases, in accordance with another prediction of the emission theory, c'=c(1+gh/c^2)?
>
Consider a deep vertical hole, sealed and evacuated. Just beneath
>
the hole's cover is suspended a downward-facing first surface mirror
with a central hole. At the bottom of the hole is a fixed upward-
facing first surface mirror. Above the hole's cover is a powerful
laser aimed very slightly off the centerline, through a window in the
center of the cover, at the bottom mirror. Off to the side of the
higher mirror is a downward-facing photocell .
Pulse the laser, then release the mirror which falls (accelerates
downward), stabilized parallel to the bottom mirror by low-friction
flanges that follow the hole walls. The laser pulse reaches and is
reflected by the bottom mirror. It then reflects off the downward-
moving mirror, gaining an increment of velocity. It then returns to
and is reflected by the bottom mirror, over and over, gaining an ever-
larger increment of velocity each time it reflects off the ever-faster-
moving falling mirror. With each reflection, the not-quite-vertical
beam zigzags farther from the hole's centerline, eventually walking
off the edge of the falling mirror, and triggers the photocell.
For an arbitrarily large number of reflections, the pulse will
attain an arbitrarily high velocity, and the photocell can trigger
*before* the mirror is released.
The photocell's output is wired to lock the mirror release.
So, what happens when you try to release the mirror?
Mark L. Fergerson
Androcles
May 16, 2012, 4:55:43 AM5/16/12
to
"nu...@bid.nes" <alie...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:21925b80-45b0-4247...@k7g2000pbo.googlegroups.com...
Bullshit. No matter how great the velocity it can never produce
effect before cause.
Pentcho Valev
May 16, 2012, 8:10:27 AM5/16/12
to
CRUCIAL QUESTION 3: Both Newton's emission theory of light and Maxwell's ether theory, unlike special relativity, predict that the frequency and the speed of light, as measured by the observer, vary with the speed of the observer. On the other hand, when the observer starts moving towards the light source with speed v (c>>v), the frequency shift seems to ALWAYS obey the equation f'=f(1+v/c). Does this support Newton's emission theory of light or Maxwell's ether theory (or both)?
ANSWER: If the frequency shift ALWAYS obeys the equation f'=f(1+v/c), then only Newton's emission theory of light gets support while Maxwell's ether theory is refuted. The latter predicts that the frequency shifts in accordance with the equation f'=f(1+v/(c±V)), where V is the speed of the ether wind along the line connecting source and observer, relative to the source.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
ANSWER: If the frequency shift ALWAYS obeys the equation f'=f(1+v/c), then only Newton's emission theory of light gets support while Maxwell's ether theory is refuted. The latter predicts that the frequency shifts in accordance with the equation f'=f(1+v/(c±V)), where V is the speed of the ether wind along the line connecting source and observer, relative to the source.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Androcles
May 16, 2012, 9:05:36 AM5/16/12
to
"Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:16499556.1049.1337170227945.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbwa3...
CRUCIAL QUESTION 3: Both Newton's emission theory of light and Maxwell's
ether theory, unlike special relativity, predict that the frequency and the
speed of light, as measured by the observer, vary with the speed of the
observer. On the other hand, when the observer starts moving towards the
light source with speed v (c>>v), the frequency shift seems to ALWAYS obey
the equation f'=f(1+v/c). Does this support Newton's emission theory of
light or Maxwell's ether theory (or both)?
ANSWER: If the frequency shift ALWAYS obeys the equation f'=f(1+v/c), then
only Newton's emission theory of light gets support while Maxwell's ether
theory is refuted. The latter predicts that the frequency shifts in
accordance with the equation f'=f(1+v/(c1V)), where V is the speed of the
ether theory, unlike special relativity, predict that the frequency and the
speed of light, as measured by the observer, vary with the speed of the
observer. On the other hand, when the observer starts moving towards the
light source with speed v (c>>v), the frequency shift seems to ALWAYS obey
the equation f'=f(1+v/c). Does this support Newton's emission theory of
light or Maxwell's ether theory (or both)?
ANSWER: If the frequency shift ALWAYS obeys the equation f'=f(1+v/c), then
only Newton's emission theory of light gets support while Maxwell's ether
theory is refuted. The latter predicts that the frequency shifts in
ether wind along the line connecting source and observer, relative to the
source.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
CRUCIAL ANSWER 3
source.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Hey bozo...
f' = f(1+v/c)
= f(c/c + v/c)
= f(c+v)/c
Maxwell's frequency shift is
f' = fc/(c+v)
alie...@gmail.com
May 16, 2012, 10:52:40 PM5/16/12
to
On May 16, 1:55 am, "Androcles" <M...@May.2012> wrote:
> "n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Read again:
"Pulse the laser, then release the mirror...". There is a delay
built into the experiment.
Simply make the delay slightly shorter than the time light would
take to get from the entry window to the photocell on a single bounce
if it traveled at a constant speed. If Valev is correct, what will
happen?
Mark L. Fergerson
> "n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote in message
"Pulse the laser, then release the mirror...". There is a delay
built into the experiment.
Simply make the delay slightly shorter than the time light would
take to get from the entry window to the photocell on a single bounce
if it traveled at a constant speed. If Valev is correct, what will
happen?
Mark L. Fergerson
Androcles
May 17, 2012, 1:22:00 AM5/17/12
to
news:b2a5f7b5-3405-46a2...@s9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
==============================================
and there is NO ever-larger increment of velocity each time it reflects
off the ever-NOT-faster-moving NOT falling mirror.
You can't have your cake and eat it too.
and there is NO ever-larger increment of velocity each time it reflects
off the ever-NOT-faster-moving NOT falling mirror.
You can't have your cake and eat it too.
alie...@gmail.com
May 17, 2012, 3:10:31 AM5/17/12
to
mirror.
Now run through the experiment again, keeping the delay in mind.
What happens?
Mark L. Fergerson
Androcles
May 17, 2012, 3:21:57 AM5/17/12
to
news:27d79403-4321-4e04...@to5g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
==================================================
Then it doesn't reach the photocell and it never triggers.
Then it doesn't reach the photocell and it never triggers.
alie...@gmail.com
May 19, 2012, 5:21:24 PM5/19/12
to
velocity of its source.
Mark L. fergerson
Androcles
May 19, 2012, 7:00:18 PM5/19/12
to
news:abaf4574-8387-420f...@r4g2000pbf.googlegroups.com...
==========================================
Consider a deep vertical hole, sealed and evacuated. Just beneath
the hole's cover is suspended a downward-facing first surface
spring cannon aimed very slightly off the centerline, through a
window in the center of the cover, at the bottom surface. Off to
the side of the higher surface is a downward-facing button .
Fire the cannon, then release the surface which falls (accelerates
downward), stabilized parallel to the bottom surface by low-friction
flanges that follow the hole walls. The rubber ball reaches and is
reflected by the bottom surface. It then reflects off the downward-
moving surface, gaining an increment of velocity. It then returns to
and is reflected by the bottom surface, over and over, gaining an ever-
path of the rubber ball zigzags farther from the hole's centerline,
eventually walking off the edge of the falling surface, and presses
the button.
Precisely, hence a rubber ball's velocity cannot be dependent on the
velocity of the cannon, you idiot.
Consider a deep vertical hole, sealed and evacuated. Just beneath
the hole's cover is suspended a downward-facing first surface
with a central hole. At the bottom of the hole is a fixed upward-
facing first surface. Above the hole's cover is a powerful
spring cannon aimed very slightly off the centerline, through a
window in the center of the cover, at the bottom surface. Off to
the side of the higher surface is a downward-facing button .
Fire the cannon, then release the surface which falls (accelerates
downward), stabilized parallel to the bottom surface by low-friction
flanges that follow the hole walls. The rubber ball reaches and is
reflected by the bottom surface. It then reflects off the downward-
moving surface, gaining an increment of velocity. It then returns to
and is reflected by the bottom surface, over and over, gaining an ever-
larger increment of velocity each time it reflects off the ever-faster-
moving falling surface. With each reflection, the not-quite-vertical
path of the rubber ball zigzags farther from the hole's centerline,
eventually walking off the edge of the falling surface, and presses
the button.
Precisely, hence a rubber ball's velocity cannot be dependent on the
velocity of the cannon, you idiot.
0 new messages