THE STATEMENT THAT ANNIHILATES EINSTEINIANA

[Pentcho Valev]

The fatal statement is "THE MOTION OF AN OBSERVER DOES NOT ALTER THE
WAVELENGTH":

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."

Einsteinians desperately exercise themselves in crimestop in order to
discover the mechanism by which the motion of the observer does alter
the wavelength but no success so far:

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-22
George Orwell: "He set to work to exercise himself in crimestop. He
presented himself with propositions - "the Party says the earth is
flat", "the party says that ice is heavier than water" - and trained
himself in not seeing or not understanding the arguments that
contradicted them. It was not easy. It needed great powers of
reasoning and improvisation. The arithmetical problems raised, for
instance, by such a statement as "two and two make five" were beyond
his intellectual grasp. It needed also a sort of athleticism of mind,
an ability at one moment to make the most delicate use of logic and at
the next to be unconscious of the crudest logical errors. Stupidity
was as necessary as intelligence, and as difficult to attain."

Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com

[Thomas Heger]

Am 01.12.2011 17:50, schrieb Pentcho Valev:
> The fatal statement is "THE MOTION OF AN OBSERVER DOES NOT ALTER THE
> WAVELENGTH":
>

Did Einstein say that?????
This is certainly wrong .

BTW: E=m*c² is wrong, too, because the signs are wrong. Actually it
means a difference or a delta.

(Hence material objects can be transformed to massless forms of energy
and vice versa.)

> http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-22
> George Orwell: "He set to work to exercise himself in crimestop. He
> presented himself with propositions - "the Party says the earth is
> flat", "the party says that ice is heavier than water" - and trained
> himself in not seeing or not understanding the arguments that
> contradicted them. It was not easy. It needed great powers of
> reasoning and improvisation. The arithmetical problems raised, for
> instance, by such a statement as "two and two make five" were beyond
> his intellectual grasp. It needed also a sort of athleticism of mind,
> an ability at one moment to make the most delicate use of logic and at
> the next to be unconscious of the crudest logical errors. Stupidity
> was as necessary as intelligence, and as difficult to attain."
>

Orwell was certainly a prophet, but we do not understand his prophecy.
What is the date of this fictious '84 ???

Certainly not 1984, since at that time the UK had not only one party.
How about 2012?

TH

[Pentcho Valev]

L'énoncé fatal (en Belgique): "SOURCE IMMOBILE - OBSERVATEUR EN
MOUVEMENT: LA DISTANCE ENTRE LES CRÊTES, LA LONGUEUR D'ONDE LAMBDA NE
CHANGE PAS":

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 !"

Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond? Thibault Damour? Etienne Klein? Jean
Eisenstaedt? Olivier Darrigol? Jean-Michel Alimi? Françoise Balibar?
Gilles Cohen-Tannoudji? Michel Paty? Jean-Pierre Luminet? Marc
Lachièze-Rey? En France la longueur d'onde change toujours? Yes we all
believe in relativity, relativity, relativity?

Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com

[Pentcho Valev]

http://www.radartutorial.eu/11.coherent/co06.fr.html
"L'effet Doppler est le décalage de fréquence d'une onde acoustique ou
électromagnétique entre la mesure à l'émission et la mesure à la
réception lorsque la distance entre l'émetteur et le récepteur varie
au cours du temps. (...) Pour comprendre ce phénomène, il s'agit de
penser à une onde à une fréquence donnée qui est émise vers un
observateur en mouvement, ou vis-versa. LA LONGUEUR D'ONDE DU SIGNAL
EST CONSTANTE mais si l'observateur se rapproche de la source, il se
déplace vers les fronts d'ondes successifs et perçoit donc plus
d'ondes par seconde que s'il était resté stationnaire, donc une
augmentation de la fréquence. De la même manière, s'il s'éloigne de la
source, les fronts d'onde l'atteindront avec un retard qui dépend de
sa vitesse d'éloignement, donc une diminution de la fréquence."

Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond? Thibault Damour? Etienne Klein? Jean
Eisenstaedt? Olivier Darrigol? Jean-Michel Alimi? Françoise Balibar?
Gilles Cohen-Tannoudji? Michel Paty? Jean-Pierre Luminet? Marc

Lachièze-Rey? Est-ce que LA LONGUEUR D'ONDE DU SIGNAL EST CONSTANTE?
Non? En France la longueur d'onde n'est jamais constante? Yes we all
believe in relativity, relativity, relativity? Est-ce que la vitesse
de l'onde (par rapport à l'observateur) varie avec la vitesse de
l'observateur? Non? En France la vitesse de l'onde (par rapport à
l'observateur) ne varie jamais avec la vitesse de l'observateur? Yes

[Pentcho Valev]

In order to save Divine Albert's Divine Theory, an Einsteinian
exercising himself in crimestop must be able at one moment to draw a
straightforward analogy between an observer moving against sound waves
and an observer moving against light waves - both pass wavecrests more
frequently than a resting observer - but then to come to the idiotic
conclusion that, while the motion of the observer does not alter the
wavelength of sound waves, it does alter the wavelength of light waves
so that the speed of the light relative to the observer can gloriously
remain unchanged. The task is extremely difficult and beyond the
intellectual grasp of almost all Einsteinians:

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-22
George Orwell: "He set to work to exercise himself in crimestop. He
presented himself with propositions - "the Party says the earth is
flat", "the party says that ice is heavier than water" - and trained
himself in not seeing or not understanding the arguments that
contradicted them. It was not easy. It needed great powers of
reasoning and improvisation. The arithmetical problems raised, for
instance, by such a statement as "two and two make five" were beyond
his intellectual grasp. It needed also a sort of athleticism of mind,
an ability at one moment to make the most delicate use of logic and at
the next to be unconscious of the crudest logical errors. Stupidity
was as necessary as intelligence, and as difficult to attain."

So far only John Norton, the cleverest Einsteinian, has managed to
solve the problem without any disintegration of his soul:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/big_bang/index.html
John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer
were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now
pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would
mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to
have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE
BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)."

Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com

[PD]

On 12/2/2011 12:43 PM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> In order to save Divine Albert's Divine Theory, an Einsteinian
> exercising himself in crimestop must be able at one moment to draw a
> straightforward analogy between an observer moving against sound waves
> and an observer moving against light waves - both pass wavecrests more
> frequently than a resting observer - but then to come to the idiotic
> conclusion that, while the motion of the observer does not alter the
> wavelength of sound waves, it does alter the wavelength of light waves
> so that the speed of the light relative to the observer can gloriously
> remain unchanged. The task is extremely difficult and beyond the
> intellectual grasp of almost all Einsteinians:
>

"Light is like sound."
"No, not really, there are major differences."
"Why would there be differences?"
"Well, because there are. Observationally. We ask nature, we don't tell
nature."
"No, that's unacceptable. Saying that there are differences is
doublespeak and will not be tolerated. Why should two things be just a
little alike and not completely alike? That sounds like an idiotic
conclusion to me."

[Dirk Van de moortel]

PD <thedrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
jbb6q0$kid$1...@speranza.aioe.org

Most appropriate.
It's been a real looooong time since I have posted a fresh update of my
Famous List of Differences Ignored by Pentcho Valev:
- light and sound, <== NEW!
- ideal circumstances vs. realistic circumstances,
- crackpots vs. people writing books fancied by crackpots,
- rates vs. values,
- a personal humorous musing vs. a common dogma,
- children's books vs. inspired essays,
- physicists vs. philosophers,
- coordinate time vs. proper time,
- invariance vs. constancy,
- special relativity vs. general relativity,
- teachers vs. hypnotists,
- laymen vs. zombies,
- a person being right vs. a theory being right,
- students vs. imbeciles,
- bad science vs. bad engineering,
- bad engineering vs. bad cost management,
- honing the foundations of a theory vs. fighting it,
- physics vs. linguistics,
- an article written in 1905 vs. a theory created in 1915,
- understanding a book vs. turning its pages,
- speed vs. relative (aka closing) speed,
- doing algebra vs. randomly writing down symbols,
- real life vs. a Usenet hobby group,
- receiving a detailed reply vs. being ignored,
- everyday concepts vs. scientific concepts in physics,
- the three things that smell like fish,
- inertial vs. non-inertial,
- speed vs. velocity,
- an article vs. a book,
- relativity vs. disguised ether addiction,
- algebra vs. analytic geometry,
- kneeling down vs. bending over,
- local vs. global,
- a sycophant in English vs. in French,
- a relation vs. an equation,
- massive vs. massless particles,
- a Mexican poncho vs. a Sears poncho,
- implication vs. equivalence,
- group velocity vs. phase velocity,
- science vs. religion

Dirk Vdm

[Pentcho Valev]

Bravo, Clever Draper! Bravo, Clever Moortel! A nice song for you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmIHNN0DiGM

Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com

[YBM]

Pentchi-Pentcha est un imbécile absolu, à un point, pour ainsi
dire, infra-humain.

[Thomas Heger]

Am 02.12.2011 19:43, schrieb Pentcho Valev:
>
> So far only John Norton, the cleverest Einsteinian, has managed to
> solve the problem without any disintegration of his soul:
>
> http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/big_bang/index.html
> John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer
> were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now
> pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would
> mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to
> have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE
> BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)."
>

Don't you think, that 'mechanics of relativity' are somehow related to
frequencies and wavelength?

If we see objects in space, this space is essentially depending on the
term 'light'.

If an observer moves, this has impact on the spectrum of observations,
hence the subset of waves we call light are shifted. This means the
universe we can see depends on our own state of movement. The
blueshifted part shrinks and the redshifted part expands.

This is somehow, what relativity tells us and that was, what Hubble
found out. But he made the wrong conclusions, that were not corrected
since: he thinks the Universe expands, hence had to start with a bang,
but the Earth moves, what makes the universe look like expanding.

(And this does not make Norton '.. the cleverest Einsteinian ...'.)

The light cone is actually, what we see and not what he depicts as
spacelike. The lightcone is actually observer dependent (its our own
past-light-cone).


Greetings

TH

[Pentcho Valev]

The good old days: Making career and money by questioning the
unquestionable (only selected "mavericks" in Einsteiniana are allowed
to attack the principle of constancy of the speed of light; anyone
else questioning Divine Albert's Divine Theory is, by definition,
crackpot, crank, troll etc. and is fiercely persecuted):

http://www.amazon.com/Trouble-Physics-String-Theory-Science/dp/0618551050
Lee Smolin, The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the
Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next, p. 226:
"Einstein's special theory of relativity is based on two postulates:
One is the relativity of motion, and the second is the constancy and
universality of the speed of light. Could the first postulate be true
and the other false? If that was not possible, Einstein would not have
had to make two postulates. But I don't think many people realized
until recently that you could have a consistent theory in which you
changed only the second postulate."

http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-Speculation/dp/0738205257
Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light: The Story of a
Scientific Speculation, p. 250:
"Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many
months, starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafés in South
Kensington or Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALL
THE EVIL WAS CLEARLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY. All these paradoxes resulted
from well known effects such as length contraction, time dilation, or
E=mc^2, all basic predictions of special relativity. And all denied
the possibility of establishing a well-defined border, common to all
observers, capable of containing new quantum gravitational effects.
Quantum gravity seemed to lack a dam - its effects wanted to spill out
all over the place; and the underlying reason was none other than
special relativity."

Magueijo and Smolin do not want to attack the principle of constancy
of the speed of light anymore. Their only care is to leave
Einsteiniana's sinking ship as promptly as possible:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_45GnkHLOfyA/TClEb8j-yAI/AAAAAAAAA48/Sz82Y_ZwGvs/s1600/Ratosdenavio.png

Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com

[Marvin the Martian]

On Sat, 03 Dec 2011 07:50:37 +0100, Thomas Heger wrote:

> Am 02.12.2011 19:43, schrieb Pentcho Valev:
>>
>> So far only John Norton, the cleverest Einsteinian, has managed to
>> solve the problem without any disintegration of his soul:
>>
>> http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/big_bang/
index.html
>> John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer were
>> to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now pass
>> wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would mean
>> that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to have
>> increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE
>> BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)."

I was bored so I read this silly thread.

What's described above is the doppler effect. The relativistic effect is
due to the relativistic length contraction.

[Daryl McCullough]

On Thursday, December 1, 2011 11:50:39 AM UTC-5, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> The fatal statement is "THE MOTION OF AN OBSERVER DOES NOT ALTER THE
> WAVELENGTH":

That is from an article about the NON-RELATIVISTIC Doppler shift.
How do you think that proves anything about the truth or falsity
of relativity?

The authors didn't say "For velocities very slow compared to the
speed of light, the motion of an observer does not alter the
wavelength", but that is the more accurate statement. They
didn't say it because they are talking about motion through
the air, and no observer is going to be moving at near
light-speed through the air.

This is a course for BEGINNING physics students. Relativity
is taught a little later.

In a relativistic treatment of the Doppler shift, wavelength
and frequency both change for a moving observer.

[Alfonso]

"Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe
impossible things."
"I dare say you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was
younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've
believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
Alice in Wonderland.

Certain fundamentalist Christians see evidence contrary to their beliefs
as a test of their faith. In some ways the more unbelievable their
position becomes the greater is the perceived virtue in believing it. It
seems to me the same is true in physics.

[Pentcho Valev]

http://www.amazon.com/Black-Holes-Wormholes-Time-Machines/dp/0750305606
Black Holes, Wormholes & Time Machines, Jim Al-Khalili
pp. 49-50: "...consider a more familiar phenomenon called the Doppler
shift which, as you probably know, is the change in pitch you hear
when, say, a fast ambulance goes past you. The reason for this effect
is the change in frequency of the sound waves which reach you from the
ambulance when it is in two different situations: moving towards you
and moving away from you. When it approaches, the waves of sound get
squashed up, giving rise to a higher frequency (high pitch) but when
it is receding the waves are stretched out to give a lower frequency
(low pitch). The same thing happens to light. When an object is moving
away from us - say a distant galaxy - the waves of light that reach us
from it get stretched and the frequency of the light goes down.
Instead of the frequency of the light we more often talk about its
wavelength. You probably remember something about wavelengths from
your school physics. You know, ripple tanks, long springs that
stretched across the class. What fun! Anyway, the wavelength is the
distance between two consecutive wave crests. So a drop in frequency
of light is really due to the stretching of the wavelengths."

Jim Al-Khalili,

As the observer starts moving towards the SOUND source, the wavelength
of the sound waves remains unchanged - the increase in frequency that
the observer registers is due to an increase in the speed of the sound
waves relative to him. You say above: "The same thing happens to
light." Does this mean that, as the observer starts moving towards the
LIGHT source, the wavelength of the light waves remains unchanged -
the increase in frequency that the observer registers is due to an
increase in the speed of the light waves relative to him?

Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com

[eric gisse]

Alfonso <Alf...@duffadd.com> wrote in
news:3L2dnVeu3K9EpEfT...@bt.com:

Since that is your opinion, are you a masochist for coming here arguing
over and over, or just stupid?

[Aetherist]

Speakth Eric through the mirror darkly...

[Thomas Heger]

Am 03.12.2011 10:17, schrieb Marvin the Martian:
> On Sat, 03 Dec 2011 07:50:37 +0100, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>> Am 02.12.2011 19:43, schrieb Pentcho Valev:
>>>
>>> So far only John Norton, the cleverest Einsteinian, has managed to
>>> solve the problem without any disintegration of his soul:
>>>
>>> http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/big_bang/
> index.html
>>> John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer were
>>> to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now pass
>>> wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would mean
>>> that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to have
>>> increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE
>>> BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)."
>
> I was bored so I read this silly thread.
>
> What's described above is the doppler effect. The relativistic effect is
> due to the relativistic length contraction.

Well, Yes.

I said, that 'relativistic length contraction' IS a Doppler effect.

It is not easy to understand, but I suggest you try, because that
phenomenon is KEY to all physics.

(Why I think so is difficult to understand, too. Actually that is kind
of hobby for me and I have written the following text about it:

https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 )

TH

>

[Pentcho Valev]

Zombie education in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world (Brian Cox
seems to be regarded as the ideal product of zombie education):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HY2R2d6AVPM
"What is redshift? And what is this Doppler effect? What does this
tell us about the universe? Quite a lot actually. Enter the realms of
Astrophysics as we look at the evidence for an expanding universe and
learn how it all began! Future Astronomers start here! In a few years,
you could be the next Brian Cox!"

Einsteinians,

This is not funny. The motion of the observer CANNOT alter the
wavelength and yet the observer measures a frequency shift as he
changes his speed. Why? If you were able to explain the problem to
children, there would be no next Brian Cox.

[Pentcho Valev]

Moving observer measures VARIABLE speed of light:

http://rockpile.phys.virginia.edu/mod04/mod34.pdf
Paul Fendley: "Now let's see what this does to the frequency of the
light. We know that even without special relativity, observers moving
at different velocities measure different frequencies. (This is the
reason the pitch of an ambulance changes as it passes you it doesn't
change if you're on the ambulance). This is called the Doppler shift,
and for small relative velocity v it is easy to show that the
frequency shifts from f to f(1+v/c) (it goes up heading toward you,
down away from you). There are relativistic corrections, but these are
negligible here."

By taking into account the formula:

(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

one concludes that the speed of light (relative to the observer)
shifts from c to c+v.

Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com

[Daryl McCullough]

On Saturday, December 3, 2011 10:01:45 AM UTC-5, Alfonso wrote:

> Certain fundamentalist Christians see evidence contrary to their beliefs
> as a test of their faith. In some ways the more unbelievable their
> position becomes the greater is the perceived virtue in believing it. It
> seems to me the same is true in physics.

"Seems to me" is the key phrase here.

[PD]

On 12/3/2011 9:01 AM, Alfonso wrote:

>
>
> "Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe
> impossible things."
> "I dare say you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was
> younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've
> believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
> Alice in Wonderland.
>
> Certain fundamentalist Christians see evidence contrary to their beliefs
> as a test of their faith. In some ways the more unbelievable their
> position becomes the greater is the perceived virtue in believing it. It
> seems to me the same is true in physics.
>

It is certainly true that science does not invoke a rule of "First, it
must be plausible and credible."

This is where science actually brings power -- it *permits* the
possibility that our mental models of the world are fundamentally off
base. But it brings with it an *external* arbiter that religious faith
does not -- validation from Nature itself by means of experimental test.

Science permits the growth and development of crazy-sounding ideas -- as
long as those ideas produce *distinct and predictive* claims that can be
compared against reasonably feasible observational measurements.

So yes, a GOOD scientist will *consider* six impossible things before
breakfast. Firm belief in any one of them is contingent on the results
of experimental test.

[mpc755]

On Dec 5, 12:18 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It is certainly true that science does not invoke a rule of "First, it
> must be plausible and credible."
>
> This is where science actually brings power -- it *permits* the
> possibility that our mental models of the world are fundamentally off
> base. But it brings with it an *external* arbiter that religious faith
> does not -- validation from Nature itself by means of experimental test.
>
> Science permits the growth and development of crazy-sounding ideas -- as
> long as those ideas produce *distinct and predictive* claims that can be
> compared against reasonably feasible observational measurements.
>
> So yes, a GOOD scientist will *consider* six impossible things before
> breakfast. Firm belief in any one of them is contingent on the results
> of experimental test.

'Quantum mechanics rule 'bent' in classic experiment'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13626587

'For his part, Professor Steinberg believes that the result reduces a
limitation not on quantum physics but on physicists themselves. "I
feel like we're starting to pull back a veil on what nature really
is," he said. "The trouble with quantum mechanics is that while we've
learned to calculate the outcomes of all sorts of experiments, we've
lost much of our ability to describe what is really happening in any
natural language. I think that this has really hampered our ability to
make progress, to come up with new ideas and see intuitively how new
systems ought to behave."'

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110602/full/news.2011.344.html

"Intriguingly, the trajectories closely match those predicted by an
unconventional interpretation of quantum mechanics known as pilot-wave
theory, in which each particle has a well-defined trajectory that
takes it through one slit while the associated wave passes through
both slits."

"What is really happening" in a double slit experiment is the particle
has a well-defined trajectory that takes it through one slit while the
associated aether wave passes through both slits.

[Aetherist]

On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 11:18:02 -0600, PD <thedrap...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 12/3/2011 9:01 AM, Alfonso wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> "Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe
>> impossible things."
>> "I dare say you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was
>> younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've
>> believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
>> Alice in Wonderland.
>>
>> Certain fundamentalist Christians see evidence contrary to their beliefs
>> as a test of their faith. In some ways the more unbelievable their
>> position becomes the greater is the perceived virtue in believing it. It
>> seems to me the same is true in physics.
>>
>
>It is certainly true that science does not invoke a rule of "First, it
>must be plausible and credible."

This should be a Ockham's Razor like test, call it a Sensibility Test,
not necessarily an ironclad rule...

>This is where science actually brings power -- it *permits* the
>possibility that our mental models of the world are fundamentally off
>base. But it brings with it an *external* arbiter that religious faith
>does not -- validation from Nature itself by means of experimental test.

Ah yes, like Arostotle's rule, heaver things naturally seek the lowest
point. Or, perhaps Ptolemy's epicycles. Measurements and experiments
must be evaluated against a 'Sensibility Test'.

>Science permits the growth and development of crazy-sounding ideas -- as
>long as those ideas produce *distinct and predictive* claims that can be
>compared against reasonably feasible observational measurements.

Ah, like the Magician's tricks... It really depends upon the scope
of said measurements. Thus, again, the sensibility tests...

>So yes, a GOOD scientist will *consider* six impossible things before
>breakfast. Firm belief in any one of them is contingent on the results
>of experimental test.

Yeah, heard about it, thought about it, forgot about... Indeed any
good scientist should be open minded to any crazy idea but the idea
that nature is fumdamentally rational should be the cornerstone of
evaluating them. As Maxwell warned 150 years ago, never forget that
we are ignorant of many things and "in our current state of ignorance"
can think up many wrong notions that will fit.

[papa...@gmail.com]

On 5 dic, 14:47, Aetherist <TheAether...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 11:18:02 -0600, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> >So yes, a GOOD scientist will *consider* six impossible things before
> >breakfast. Firm belief in any one of them is contingent on the results
> >of experimental test.
>
> Yeah, heard about it, thought about it, forgot about...  Indeed any
> good scientist should be open minded to any crazy idea but the idea
> that nature is fumdamentally rational should be the cornerstone of
> evaluating them.  As Maxwell warned 150 years ago, never forget that
> we are ignorant of many things and "in our current state of ignorance"
> can think up many wrong notions that will fit.

It is amazing how so many here, shameless pontificate about the idea
"...nature is fumdamentally rational should be the cornerstone of
evaluating...". Of course, these guys are attributing to themselves
the ability to differentiate between a rational and an irrational type
of Nature (as if a given human being was able to distinguish between
rationality and irrationality by himself). Unfortunately for those
guys Nature is what it is, nothing more, nothing less. With all our
limited human abilities, the only thing we can pretend to do is to
propose some very limited models, which try to explain what Nature do
in certain and very limited aspects of its behavior.

[PD]

On 12/5/2011 11:47 AM, Aetherist wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 11:18:02 -0600, PD<thedrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 12/3/2011 9:01 AM, Alfonso wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe
>>> impossible things."
>>> "I dare say you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was
>>> younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've
>>> believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
>>> Alice in Wonderland.
>>>
>>> Certain fundamentalist Christians see evidence contrary to their beliefs
>>> as a test of their faith. In some ways the more unbelievable their
>>> position becomes the greater is the perceived virtue in believing it. It
>>> seems to me the same is true in physics.
>>>
>>
>> It is certainly true that science does not invoke a rule of "First, it
>> must be plausible and credible."
>
> This should be a Ockham's Razor like test, call it a Sensibility Test,
> not necessarily an ironclad rule...
>
>> This is where science actually brings power -- it *permits* the
>> possibility that our mental models of the world are fundamentally off
>> base. But it brings with it an *external* arbiter that religious faith
>> does not -- validation from Nature itself by means of experimental test.
>
> Ah yes, like Arostotle's rule, heaver things naturally seek the lowest
> point.

Exactly! And note that Aristotle was not privy to the experimental
evidence that showed this rule does not work.

> Or, perhaps Ptolemy's epicycles.

Um. Ptolemy's model is not predictive, it is postdictive. See below.

> Measurements and experiments
> must be evaluated against a 'Sensibility Test'.

Strenuously disagree here. Measurements and experiments are the ARBITER
of truth in science. Once corroborated, they do not and should not be
filtered with an "sensibility test".

>
>> Science permits the growth and development of crazy-sounding ideas -- as
>> long as those ideas produce *distinct and predictive* claims that can be
>> compared against reasonably feasible observational measurements.
>
> Ah, like the Magician's tricks... It really depends upon the scope
> of said measurements. Thus, again, the sensibility tests...
>
>> So yes, a GOOD scientist will *consider* six impossible things before
>> breakfast. Firm belief in any one of them is contingent on the results
>> of experimental test.
>
> Yeah, heard about it, thought about it, forgot about... Indeed any
> good scientist should be open minded to any crazy idea but the idea
> that nature is fumdamentally rational should be the cornerstone of
> evaluating them.

Yes, fundamentally rational. Consistent with previous conceptual models
of the world, no. Describable in everyday language without semantic
shift, no.

> As Maxwell warned 150 years ago, never forget that
> we are ignorant of many things and "in our current state of ignorance"
> can think up many wrong notions that will fit.

And as we learn more things, our model changes. The model that is
accepted at present is the one that is most successful based on our
current knowledge base.

[mpc755]

Or, you could understand dark matter is aether.

The following recent articles describe dark matter as aether.

'Quantum aether and an invariant Planck scale'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.3753

"this version of aether may have some bearing on the abundance of Dark
Matter and Dark Energy in our universe."

"mass of the aether"

'Scalars, Vectors and Tensors from Metric-Affine Gravity'
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1110.5168

"the model obtained here gets closer to the aether theory of , which
is shown therein to be an alternative to the cold dark matter."

'Unified model for dark matter and quintessence'
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0610135

"Superfluid dark matter is reminiscent of the aether and modeling the
universe using superfluid aether is compatible."

'Vainshtein mechanism in Gauss-Bonnet gravity and Galileon aether'
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1107.1892

"the perturbations of the scalar field do not propagate in the
Minkowski space-time but rather in some form of ”aether” because of
the presence of the background field"

'Phenomenology of Gravitational Aether as a solution to the Old
Cosmological Constant Problem'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.3955

"One proposal to address this puzzle at the semi-classical level is to
decouple quantum vacuum from space-time geometry via a modification of
gravity that includes an incompressible fluid, known as Gravitational
Aether."

'From Analogue Models to Gravitating Vacuum'
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1111.1155

The following article describes aether as a real substance.

"The aether of the 21-st century is the quantum vacuum, which is a new
form of matter. This is the real substance"
'The aether-modified gravity and the G ̈del metric'
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1109.5654v2

The following article describes gravity as pressure exerted by aether
toward matter.

"As for the pressure, it is equal to p = 53−αg,6a2 so, it is positive
if αg < 3 which is the weaker condition than the previous one. One
notes that the results corresponding to the usual gravity are easily
recovered. Also, it is easy to see that the interval αg < 15
corresponds to the usual matter."

[mpc755]

[PD]

It may be the issue is that they think that if it is fundamentally
rational then it should appear rational to *anyone* and *everyone* with
a minimum of effort.

[Daryl McCullough]

On Monday, December 5, 2011 1:07:21 PM UTC-5, papa...@gmail.com wrote:

> It is amazing how so many here, shameless pontificate about the idea
> "...nature is fumdamentally rational should be the cornerstone of
> evaluating...". Of course, these guys are attributing to themselves
> the ability to differentiate between a rational and an irrational type
> of Nature (as if a given human being was able to distinguish between
> rationality and irrationality by himself). Unfortunately for those
> guys Nature is what it is, nothing more, nothing less. With all our
> limited human abilities, the only thing we can pretend to do is to
> propose some very limited models, which try to explain what Nature do
> in certain and very limited aspects of its behavior.

People also tend to fail to distinguish between something being
"irrational" and something being "unintuitive". What's intuitive
and what is not is purely subjective and changeable; something
that is unintuitive at one time may be perfectly intuitive at
a different time. To say that something is intuitive says more
about ourselves than it says about the world.

[Daryl McCullough]

On Monday, December 5, 2011 12:47:14 PM UTC-5, Aetherist wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 11:18:02 -0600, PD <thedrap...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >This is where science actually brings power -- it *permits* the
> >possibility that our mental models of the world are fundamentally off
> >base. But it brings with it an *external* arbiter that religious faith
> >does not -- validation from Nature itself by means of experimental test.
>
> Ah yes, like Arostotle's rule, heaver things naturally seek the lowest
> point. Or, perhaps Ptolemy's epicycles. Measurements and experiments
> must be evaluated against a 'Sensibility Test'.

I don't think the examples of Aristotle and Ptolemy help you
here. They WERE espousing what was considered the sensible
theories, that heavier objects fall faster, and that heavenly
objects circle the Earth.

> >Science permits the growth and development of crazy-sounding ideas -- as
> >long as those ideas produce *distinct and predictive* claims that can be
> >compared against reasonably feasible observational measurements.
>
> Ah, like the Magician's tricks... It really depends upon the scope
> of said measurements. Thus, again, the sensibility tests...

The notion of what is "sensible" is relative to a background theory
of what the world is like. Hopefully, with time, our theories of the
way the world works will settle down into a rough approximation of
the truth, and later theories would be refinements on it. But there
is no a priori reason to believe that our intuitive notion of what
is sensible should carry much weight.

I think the analogy with a magician's tricks is completely misguided.
A magician's tricks work by using our intuitions AGAINST us.

Anyway, your comments really amount to just special pleading for
people to pay more attention to what YOU think about things. You
wish that your opinions were the only ones that were considered
sensible. Sorry that the world disappoints you.

[mpc755]

On Dec 5, 1:39 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:

[mpc755]

It is intuitively obvious dark matter is aether.

It is intuitively obvious aether is displaced by matter.

It is intuitively obvious a moving particle has an associated aether
wave.

It is intuitively obvious in a double slit experiment the particle has

[mpc755]

The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is a magician's
trick. It has nothing to do with what occurs physically in nature.

[Aetherist]

On Mon, 5 Dec 2011 10:54:28 -0800 (PST), Daryl McCullough <stevend...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Monday, December 5, 2011 12:47:14 PM UTC-5, Aetherist wrote:
>> On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 11:18:02 -0600, PD <thedrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >This is where science actually brings power -- it *permits* the
>> >possibility that our mental models of the world are fundamentally off
>> >base. But it brings with it an *external* arbiter that religious faith
>> >does not -- validation from Nature itself by means of experimental test.
>>
>> Ah yes, like Arostotle's rule, heaver things naturally seek the lowest
>> point. Or, perhaps Ptolemy's epicycles. Measurements and experiments
>> must be evaluated against a 'Sensibility Test'.
>
>I don't think the examples of Aristotle and Ptolemy help you
>here. They WERE espousing what was considered the sensible
>theories, that heavier objects fall faster, and that heavenly
>objects circle the Earth.

Yes, they both seemed sensible and true in their 'context' or as Roberts
like to espout, 'in their domain of validity'. Heayier object do have
a greater terminal velocity 'in air' and Ptolemy's method describes
measurements from Earth's perspective. But not with greater insight.
My point is validation limited to certain things, like dropping things
in Earth's air or using the Earth as a basis leads to distorted conclusions.
Thus measurement and observations cannot BE the sole arbitor. I think
you missed the whole point.

>> >Science permits the growth and development of crazy-sounding ideas -- as
>> >long as those ideas produce *distinct and predictive* claims that can be
>> >compared against reasonably feasible observational measurements.
>>
>> Ah, like the Magician's tricks... It really depends upon the scope
>> of said measurements. Thus, again, the sensibility tests...
>
>The notion of what is "sensible" is relative to a background theory
>of what the world is like. Hopefully, with time, our theories of the
>way the world works will settle down into a rough approximation of
>the truth, and later theories would be refinements on it. But there
>is no a priori reason to believe that our intuitive notion of what
>is sensible should carry much weight.

No, the magician depends upon you not being able to see or measure
critical elements that would reveal too much. It is your intuitive
notion that crys out that what you just saw was wrong, somehow.

>I think the analogy with a magician's tricks is completely misguided.
>A magician's tricks work by using our intuitions AGAINST us.
>
>Anyway, your comments really amount to just special pleading for
>people to pay more attention to what YOU think about things. You
>wish that your opinions were the only ones that were considered
>sensible. Sorry that the world disappoints you.

No, it wrapped up in the philosophy of realism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism

But yes, I ascribe to that philosopy. I am however quite aware that it
IS a philosophical perspective and not the only one out there, OR, that
it must be the only true one. I will advocate it however...

[papa...@gmail.com]

On 5 dic, 15:25, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 5, 1:07 pm, "papar...@gmail.com" <papar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It is amazing how so many here, shameless pontificate about the idea
> > "...nature is fumdamentally rational should be the cornerstone of
> > evaluating...". Of course, these guys are attributing to themselves
> > the ability to differentiate between a rational and an irrational type
> > of Nature (as if a given human being was able to distinguish between
> > rationality and irrationality by himself). Unfortunately for those
> > guys Nature is what it is, nothing more, nothing less. With all our
> > limited human abilities, the only thing we can pretend to do is to
> > propose some very limited models, which try to explain what Nature do
> > in certain and very limited aspects of its behavior.
>
> Or, you could understand dark matter is aether.
>

You are, for sure, the best example of the ultimate archetype of
"human and irrational", as defined by human experts in the field of
human brain dissorders.
But, by all means, just do continue with your efforts to tell Nature
how to do its nature thing.

[mpc755]

On Dec 5, 3:13 pm, Aetherist <TheAether...@gmail.com> wrote:

What really happens in a double slit experiment is the particle has a
well defined trajectory which takes it through one slit while the
associated aether wave passes through both.

[mpc755]

You are one of the best examples of why physics is so screwed up
today. You have been brainwashed into not being able to understand
what is really happening in a double slit experiment.

In a double slit experiment the particle has a well defined trajectory

[Daryl McCullough]

On Monday, December 5, 2011 2:24:08 PM UTC-5, mpc755 wrote:

> It is intuitively obvious dark matter is aether.
>
> It is intuitively obvious aether is displaced by matter.
>
> It is intuitively obvious a moving particle has an associated aether
> wave.

Those are good examples of statements that are intuitive, but
almost certainly false.

[mpc755]

Only in the absolutely absurd nonsense of the magic tricks of the
Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics are they false.

'Quantum mechanics rule 'bent' in classic experiment'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13626587

'For his part, Professor Steinberg believes that the result reduces a
limitation not on quantum physics but on physicists themselves. "I
feel like we're starting to pull back a veil on what nature really
is," he said. "The trouble with quantum mechanics is that while we've
learned to calculate the outcomes of all sorts of experiments, we've
lost much of our ability to describe what is really happening in any
natural language. I think that this has really hampered our ability to
make progress, to come up with new ideas and see intuitively how new
systems ought to behave."'

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110602/full/news.2011.344.html

"Intriguingly, the trajectories closely match those predicted by an
unconventional interpretation of quantum mechanics known as pilot-wave

theory, in which each particle has a well-defined trajectory that
takes it through one slit while the associated wave passes through
both slits."

"What is really happening" in a double slit experiment is the particle

[Alfonso]

Well put!

[mpc755]

On Dec 6, 5:25 am, Alfonso <Alfo...@duffadd.com> wrote:
>
> > Yeah, heard about it, thought about it, forgot about...  Indeed any
> > good scientist should be open minded to any crazy idea but the idea
> > that nature is fumdamentally rational should be the cornerstone of
> > evaluating them.  As Maxwell warned 150 years ago, never forget that
> > we are ignorant of many things and "in our current state of ignorance"
> > can think up many wrong notions that will fit.
>
> Well put!

The why can't you understand dark matter is aether and aether is
displaced by matter?

'NASA's Voyager Hits New Region at Solar System Edge'
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2011/dec/HQ_11-402_AGU_Voyager.html

"Voyager is showing that what is outside is pushing back. ... Like
cars piling up at a clogged freeway off-ramp, the increased intensity
of the magnetic field shows that inward pressure from interstellar
space is compacting it."

What is outside pushing back? 'Empty' space? Or is this just another
magical property of space?

The aether displaced by the solar system is pushing back and exerting
inward pressure toward the solar system.

This is gravity.

[mpc755]

What is outside pushing back if not the aether?

'NASA's Voyager Hits New Region at Solar System Edge'
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2011/dec/HQ_11-402_AGU_Voyager.html

"Voyager is showing that what is outside is pushing back. ... Like
cars piling up at a clogged freeway off-ramp, the increased intensity
of the magnetic field shows that inward pressure from interstellar
space is compacting it."

[Daryl McCullough]

On Monday, December 5, 2011 10:24:19 PM UTC-5, mpc755 wrote:

> On Dec 5, 6:22 pm, Daryl McCullough <stevend...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, December 5, 2011 2:24:08 PM UTC-5, mpc755 wrote:
> > > It is intuitively obvious dark matter is aether.
> >
> > > It is intuitively obvious aether is displaced by matter.
> >
> > > It is intuitively obvious a moving particle has an associated aether
> > > wave.
> >
> > Those are good examples of statements that are intuitive, but
> > almost certainly false.
>
> Only in the absolutely absurd nonsense of the magic tricks of the
> Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics are they false.

In other words, they are scientifically false, but intuitively
true.

[mpc755]

They are scientifically true and intuitively true.

What is outside pushing back if not the aether?

'NASA's Voyager Hits New Region at Solar System Edge'
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2011/dec/HQ_11-402_AGU_Voyager.html

"Voyager is showing that what is outside is pushing back. ... Like
cars piling up at a clogged freeway off-ramp, the increased intensity
of the magnetic field shows that inward pressure from interstellar
space is compacting it."

The aether displaced by the solar system is pushing back and exerting
inward pressure toward the solar system.

This is gravity.

What is waving if not the aether?

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110602/full/news.2011.344.html

"Intriguingly, the trajectories closely match those predicted by an
unconventional interpretation of quantum mechanics known as pilot-wave
theory, in which each particle has a well-defined trajectory that
takes it through one slit while the associated wave passes through
both slits."

In a double slit experiment is the particle has a well-defined

[Daryl McCullough]

On Monday, December 5, 2011 3:13:44 PM UTC-5, Aetherist wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Dec 2011 10:54:28 -0800 (PST), Daryl McCullough <stevend...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, December 5, 2011 12:47:14 PM UTC-5, Aetherist wrote:

> >> Ah yes, like Arostotle's rule, heaver things naturally seek the lowest
> >> point. Or, perhaps Ptolemy's epicycles. Measurements and experiments
> >> must be evaluated against a 'Sensibility Test'.
> >
> >I don't think the examples of Aristotle and Ptolemy help you
> >here. They WERE espousing what was considered the sensible
> >theories, that heavier objects fall faster, and that heavenly
> >objects circle the Earth.
>
> Yes, they both seemed sensible and true in their 'context' or as Roberts
> like to espout, 'in their domain of validity'. Heayier object do have
> a greater terminal velocity 'in air' and Ptolemy's method describes
> measurements from Earth's perspective. But not with greater insight.

I don't know what you mean by "insight" here. If there are two
explanations for a phenomenon, and they are equally accurate,
as far as testable predictions, then the choice between them
is based either on preference for certain kinds of theories
(ones that are simpler, or more elegant, or more intuitive,
or whatever), or on a pre-existing belief about what the
universe is "really" like.

Now, one thing that could be called insight, which maybe is what
you mean, is that someone can see (often through thought experiments,
or "what if" reasoning) that some proposed law of physics has
consequences that are surprising, or that contradict other assumptions
about the way the universe works. For an example relating to Aristotle's
theory that heavier objects fall faster, you can imagine two people
falling side-by-side. Then they join hands to form a composite object
that is twice as heavy. It's weird to think that that could make them
fall faster.

But it certainly is not IMPOSSIBLE. For example, we could do the
same thought experiment with two people with a negative charge
(and negligible mass) falling toward a planet with a large positive
charge. If the two joined hands, they would in effect become a single
object with twice the charge, and would indeed fall twice as fast.
So the thought experiment is not a clear-cut case.

If by "insight" you mean seeing through to the consequences of
a proposed law of physics, so that you can see that it "works"
or "doesn't work", then I agree, insight can lead you to prefer
one law over another even without additional experimental input.

[mpc755]

Insight leads to understanding what is presently postulated as dark
matter is aether. Insight leads to understanding aether is displaced
by matter. Insight leads to understanding the displaced aether pushes
back toward the matter. Insight leads to understanding the displaced
aether exerts pressure toward the matter.

Now, when there is evidence of the pushing back and you refuse to
acknowledge it, that's called denial. When there is evidence of the
pressure and you refuse to acknowledge it, that's called denial.

[eric gisse]

Alfonso <Alf...@duffadd.com> wrote in
news:SP2dnZ-rZ50CcEDT...@bt.com:

[...]

>> Yeah, heard about it, thought about it, forgot about... Indeed any
>> good scientist should be open minded to any crazy idea but the idea
>> that nature is fumdamentally rational should be the cornerstone of
>> evaluating them. As Maxwell warned 150 years ago, never forget that
>> we are ignorant of many things and "in our current state of
>> ignorance" can think up many wrong notions that will fit.
>
> Well put!
>

Neither of you have any sense of irony, which is amusing since neither you
understand any development in physics since Maxwell made that quote.

[mpc755]

On Dec 6, 2:42 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Alfonso <Alfo...@duffadd.com> wrote innews:SP2dnZ-rZ50CcEDT...@bt.com:

And you are unable to understand what is outside of the solar system
pushing back and exerting pressure inward toward the solar system is
the aether.

[Pentcho Valev]

Moving observer paradoxes in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world:

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 Œ=(c + v)/
(lambda). (...) Relativistic Doppler Effect. These results depend on
the absolute velocities of the source and observer, not just on the
relative velocity of the two. That seems odd, but is allowable as
sound waves are waves in a medium, and motion relative to the medium
may legitimately matter. But for light (or EM radiation in general)
there is no medium, and this must be wrong. This needs relativity.
(...) If the source is regarded as fixed and the observer is moving,
then the observer's clock runs slow. They will measure time intervals
as being shorter than they are in the rest frame of the source, and so
they will measure frequencies as being higher, again by a gamma
factor."

Normal physicists clearly see that the motion of the observer CANNOT
alter the wavelength of any wave so the only reasonable conclusion is
that the speed of the light wave (relative to the observer) varies
with the speed of the observer (c'=c+v). Accordingly, for the sake of
salary, normal physicists are forced to add some idiotic camouflage -
the more idiotic, the better.

Paradoxically, deranged Einsteinians do not resort to idiotic
camouflage. Silly Einsteinians simply avoid the issue (crimestop)
while "the subtlest practitioners of doublethink" convincingly declare
that the motion of the observer does alter the wavelength and that's
it:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/big_bang/index.html
John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer
were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now
pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would
mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to
have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE
BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)."

Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com

[Tom Potter]

"PD" <thedrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jbj1gm$9at$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

> truth in science.. < Finance, business, war, sex, games, etc. >

Thanks to my pal Paul Draper for pointing out
that General Relativity is not "truth"
if "Measurements and experiments" are performed by sentient beings.

Unlike Newton's Laws, the DNA model, Maxwell's Equations,
Ohm's Law, Kirchoff's Laws, etc.
General Relativity makes no allowance for sentient beings.

General Relativity was Einstein's attempt to use the model
( Stresses and strains ) and the tools (Tensors )
of the Stress Analysis Gurus of the 1800's
to the larger universe,
and although stress analysis works well on inanimate objects,
it is not very useful for environments possessed by sentient beings.

In fact, General Relativity seems to generate more heat than light,
and waste time, money and minds on such things as time travel,
worm holes, and things beyond man's capacity to ever experience
in time and space, like the beginning and end of time.

It appears that all General Relativity Guru's are
on the public dole.

Does anyone know of any GTR Gurus
that have earned an honest income in the free market
using their knowledge of General Relativity?

A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

--
Tom Potter
-----------------
http://www.prioritize.biz/
http://voices.yuku.com/forums/66
http://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com/siteindex.zhtml
http://184.105.237.216/~tompotte/
http://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com

[Pentcho Valev]

The statement that annihilates Einsteiniana:

http://physics.ucsd.edu/students/courses/summer2011/session1/physics2c/Waves.pdf
"Doppler Shift: Moving Observer: Shift in frequency only, wavelength
does not change"

Since "wavelength does not change", then the speed of the light wave
(relative to the observer) does, in accordance with the formula:

(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com

[PD]

On 12/18/2011 2:16 PM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> The statement that annihilates Einsteiniana:
>
> http://physics.ucsd.edu/students/courses/summer2011/session1/physics2c/Waves.pdf
> "Doppler Shift: Moving Observer: Shift in frequency only, wavelength
> does not change"

That's for sound, not for light. For light, that statement is not true.
Wavelength is directly measurable for both sound and for light. What is
observed is that the wavelength of sound may not change but the
wavelength of light definitely does change.

[Pentcho Valev]

On Dec 18, 9:27 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/18/2011 2:16 PM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> > The statement that annihilates Einsteiniana:
>
> > http://physics.ucsd.edu/students/courses/summer2011/session1/physics2c/Waves.pdf
> > "Doppler Shift: Moving Observer: Shift in frequency only, wavelength
> > does not change"
>
> That's for sound, not for light. For light, that statement is not true.
> Wavelength is directly measurable for both sound and for light. What is
> observed is that the wavelength of sound may not change but the
> wavelength of light definitely does change.

What changes the wavelength of light, Clever Draper? The gaze of the
observer? Any other wavelength is resistant?

Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com

[Tom Roberts]

On 12/18/11 12/18/11 2:48 PM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> On Dec 18, 9:27 pm, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 12/18/2011 2:16 PM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>>> The statement that annihilates Einsteiniana:

It only "annihilates' Pentcho Valev's MISunderstanding of relativity.

>>> http://physics.ucsd.edu/students/courses/summer2011/session1/physics2c/Waves.pdf
>>> "Doppler Shift: Moving Observer: Shift in frequency only, wavelength
>>> does not change"
>>
>> That's for sound, not for light. For light, that statement is not true.
>> Wavelength is directly measurable for both sound and for light. What is
>> observed is that the wavelength of sound may not change but the
>> wavelength of light definitely does change.
>

> What changes the wavelength of light?

You phrased this poorly. Indeed, NOTHING that is intrinsic to the light wave
"changes". But then, wavelength is NOT an intrinsic property of a light wave.

What does change with the observer's velocity is the RELATIONSHIP between the
observer's wavelength-measuring apparatus and the light wave, and this causes
differently moving observers to MEASURE different wavelengths for the same light
wave.

Light is not sound (DUH!).


Tom Roberts

[PD]

The change in reference frame changes the wavelength, Clever Pentcho.
This should not be so surprising. Just changing the reference frame
changes the velocity of an object, too, even without so much as touching
the object.

The question, Clever Pentcho, is why you don't blink at all with change
in velocity with different gaze of different observer, but a change in
wavelength with different gaze of different observer causes you to
splutter, "But... but.... that cannot BE!"

[Neo]

On Dec 19, 8:20 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 12/18/11 12/18/11   2:48 PM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> > On Dec 18, 9:27 pm, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >> On 12/18/2011 2:16 PM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> >>> The statement that annihilates Einsteiniana:
>
> It only "annihilates' Pentcho Valev's MISunderstanding of relativity.
>

> >>>http://physics.ucsd.edu/students/courses/summer2011/session1/physics2...

> >>> "Doppler Shift: Moving Observer: Shift in frequency only, wavelength
> >>> does not change"
>
> >> That's for sound, not for light. For light, that statement is not true.
> >> Wavelength is directly measurable for both sound and for light. What is
> >> observed is that the wavelength of sound may not change but the
> >> wavelength of light definitely does change.
>
> > What changes the wavelength of light?
>
> You phrased this poorly. Indeed, NOTHING that is intrinsic to the light wave
> "changes". But then, wavelength is NOT an intrinsic property of a light wave.
>
> What does change with the observer's velocity is the RELATIONSHIP between the
> observer's wavelength-measuring apparatus and the light wave, and this causes
> differently moving observers to MEASURE different wavelengths for the same light
> wave.
>
> Light is not sound (DUH!).
>
> Tom Roberts

How about the length of a train contracted to a mere 0.1mm near the
speed of light? Are you saying that it is the relationship between the
observer measuring apparatus and the light wave emitted from the
train? No. Fact is, the train doesn't exist physically.

[G. L. Bradford]

"Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:620f09bd-f91b-48bd...@n39g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...

====================

I'm approaching my outside limits here but I'll give this a go anyway:

How many possible wavelengths, therefore frequencies, might there be
contained within any one speed of light signal, Valev? Though I may be wrong
in this, I think the limit is infinity. That is including wavelengths buried
within wavelengths within wavelengths deep......to infinity!? Therefore
frequencies buried within frequencies within frequencies deep......to
infinity!? One speed of light signal containing so many possible sub-signals
(so many signals)....so many possible things!? I suppose it depends upon the
equipment, most particularly the potential proprietary redundancy (sic) of
the equipment, what we can ferret out, or what gold we might hope to glean
from so much possible variety, so much possible diversity, in the ore
overall to be had from each one speed of light signal. That is, if I have it
right to begin with.

GLB

===================

[Pentcho Valev]

On Dec 19 Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:

> Pentcho Valev wrote:
>> The statement that annihilates Einsteiniana:
>
> It only "annihilates' Pentcho Valev's MISunderstanding of relativity.
>
>> http://physics.ucsd.edu/students/courses/summer2011/session1/physics2c/Waves.pdf
>> "Doppler Shift: Moving Observer: Shift in frequency only, wavelength
>> does not change"
>

> Indeed, NOTHING that is intrinsic to the light wave
> "changes". But then, wavelength is NOT an intrinsic property of a light wave.
>
> What does change with the observer's velocity is the RELATIONSHIP between the
> observer's wavelength-measuring apparatus and the light wave, and this causes
> differently moving observers to MEASURE different wavelengths for the same light
> wave.
>
> Light is not sound (DUH!).
>
> Tom Roberts

If you are right, Honest Roberts, then Einsteiniana's education
presenting the wavelength as an intrinsic property of the light wave -
as "the distance between crests" - is perniciously misleading:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/big_bang/index.html
John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer
were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now
pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would
mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to
have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE
BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)."

But let us ignore this for the moment and concentrate on the following
wisdom of yours:

Tom Roberts: "NOTHING that is intrinsic to the light wave "changes".
(...) What does change with the observer's velocity is the

RELATIONSHIP between the observer's wavelength-measuring apparatus and
the light wave, and this causes differently moving observers to
MEASURE different wavelengths for the same light wave."

Then, Honest Roberts, you should explain the case in which "NOTHING
that is intrinsic to the light wave changes", on the one hand, and the
observer's velocity does not change either, on the other:

http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-Stephen-Hawking/dp/0553380168
Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 3:
"...we must first understand the Doppler effect. As we have seen,
visible light consists of fluctuations, or waves, in the
electromagnetic field. The wavelength (or distance from one wave crest
to the next) of light is extremely small, ranging from four to seven
ten-millionths of a meter. The different wavelengths of light are what
the human eye sees as different colors, with the longest wavelengths
appearing at the red end of the spectrum and the shortest wavelengths
at the blue end. 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. This means that the wavelength of the waves we receive
is shorter than when the star was stationary. Correspondingly, if the
source is moving away from us, the wavelength of the waves we receive
will be longer. In the case of light, therefore, means that stars
moving away from us will have their spectra shifted toward the red end
of the spectrum (red-shifted) and those moving toward us will have
their spectra blue-shifted."

Does the wavelength AS MEASURED BY THE OBSERVER vary with the velocity
of the source and if yes why, Honest Roberts?

Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com

[PD]

On 12/19/2011 12:12 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> On Dec 19 Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
>> Pentcho Valev wrote:
>>> The statement that annihilates Einsteiniana:
>>
>> It only "annihilates' Pentcho Valev's MISunderstanding of relativity.
>>
>>> http://physics.ucsd.edu/students/courses/summer2011/session1/physics2c/Waves.pdf
>>> "Doppler Shift: Moving Observer: Shift in frequency only, wavelength
>>> does not change"
>>
>> Indeed, NOTHING that is intrinsic to the light wave
>> "changes". But then, wavelength is NOT an intrinsic property of a light wave.
>>
>> What does change with the observer's velocity is the RELATIONSHIP between the
>> observer's wavelength-measuring apparatus and the light wave, and this causes
>> differently moving observers to MEASURE different wavelengths for the same light
>> wave.
>>
>> Light is not sound (DUH!).
>>
>> Tom Roberts
>
> If you are right, Honest Roberts, then Einsteiniana's education
> presenting the wavelength as an intrinsic property of the light wave -
> as "the distance between crests" - is perniciously misleading:

There is nothing in the statement below that says that wavelength is an
intrinsic property of light. Likewise, you can measure the velocity of
an object, but velocity is not an intrinsic property of the object. Do
you know what "intrinsic" means in this context?

[Pentcho Valev]

On Dec 19, 3:30 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There is nothing in the statement below that says that wavelength is an
> intrinsic property of light. Likewise, you can measure the velocity of
> an object, but velocity is not an intrinsic property of the object. Do
> you know what "intrinsic" means in this context?

zombie hear master roberts say wavelength not intrinsic. zombie hear
bad people say wavelength intrinsic. zombie love master roberts.
master roberts say divine albert good. zombie hate bad people. bad
people say divine albert bad. zombie say wavelength not intrinsic.
zombie say bad people stupid. zombie say master roberts right.

Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com

[PD]

On 12/19/2011 10:04 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> On Dec 19, 3:30 pm, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> There is nothing in the statement below that says that wavelength is an
>> intrinsic property of light. Likewise, you can measure the velocity of
>> an object, but velocity is not an intrinsic property of the object. Do
>> you know what "intrinsic" means in this context?
>
> zombie hear master roberts say wavelength not intrinsic.

Wavelength is not intrinsic.

> zombie hear
> bad people say wavelength intrinsic.

The only person here who has said that wavelength is intrinsic is you.

[Tom Roberts]

On 12/18/11 12/18/11 6:35 PM, Neo wrote:
> On Dec 19, 8:20 am, Tom Roberts<tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> What does change with the observer's velocity is the RELATIONSHIP between the
>> observer's wavelength-measuring apparatus and the light wave, and this causes
>> differently moving observers to MEASURE different wavelengths for the same light
>> wave.
>

> How about the length of a train contracted to a mere 0.1mm near the
> speed of light? Are you saying that it is the relationship between the
> observer measuring apparatus and the light wave emitted from the
> train?

In that case, what changed due to the observer's velocity relative to the train
is the RELATIONSHIP between measuring instrument and train.

> No. Fact is, the train doesn't exist physically.

I have no idea what you mean here. Of course this is a gedanken, which is
inherent in the way you phrased the question....


Tom Roberts

[Tom Roberts]

On 12/19/11 12/19/11 12:12 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> On Dec 19 Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
>> Pentcho Valev wrote:
>>> The statement that annihilates Einsteiniana:
>> It only "annihilates' Pentcho Valev's MISunderstanding of relativity.
>>> http://physics.ucsd.edu/students/courses/summer2011/session1/physics2c/Waves.pdf
>>> "Doppler Shift: Moving Observer: Shift in frequency only, wavelength
>>> does not change"
>> Indeed, NOTHING that is intrinsic to the light wave
>> "changes". But then, wavelength is NOT an intrinsic property of a light wave.
>> What does change with the observer's velocity is the RELATIONSHIP between the
>> observer's wavelength-measuring apparatus and the light wave, and this causes
>> differently moving observers to MEASURE different wavelengths for the same light
>> wave.
>> Light is not sound (DUH!).
>

> If you are right, Honest Roberts, then Einsteiniana's education
> presenting the wavelength as an intrinsic property of the light wave -
> as "the distance between crests" - is perniciously misleading:

Nobody but you said this is an intrinsic property of the light wave. YOU are
wrong. The quote you give is discussing measurements, not intrinsic properties
of the light wave.

> But let us ignore this for the moment and concentrate on the following

> wisdom of yours [...]

You need to learn how to read. My very next sentence clears up your confusion:

"What does change with the observer's velocity is the RELATIONSHIP between the

observer's wavelength-measuring apparatus and the light wave...". That is a
standard English phrasing that says that CHANGES in the observer's velocity
imply CHANGES in the relationship -- the important word is "with".


Tom Roberts

[Pentcho Valev]

On Dec 20, 1:10 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 12/19/11 12/19/11   12:12 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > If you are right, Honest Roberts, then Einsteiniana's education
> > presenting the wavelength as an intrinsic property of the light wave -
> > as "the distance between crests" - is perniciously misleading:
>
> Nobody but you said this is an intrinsic property of the light wave. YOU are
> wrong. The quote you give is discussing measurements, not intrinsic properties
> of the light wave.

Honest Roberts,

I referred you to the teaching of superior brother Stephen Hawking
according to which the wavelength is preformed by the light source -
by changing its own speed, the light source can change the wavelength
and then this changed wavelength reaches the stationary observer. In
other words, the stationary observer receives light characterized by
some varying INTRINSIC property called "wavelength":

http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-Stephen-Hawking/dp/0553380168
Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 3:
"...we must first understand the Doppler effect. As we have seen,
visible light consists of fluctuations, or waves, in the
electromagnetic field. The wavelength (or distance from one wave crest
to the next) of light is extremely small, ranging from four to seven
ten-millionths of a meter. The different wavelengths of light are what
the human eye sees as different colors, with the longest wavelengths
appearing at the red end of the spectrum and the shortest wavelengths
at the blue end. 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. This means that the wavelength of the waves we receive
is shorter than when the star was stationary. Correspondingly, if the
source is moving away from us, the wavelength of the waves we receive
will be longer. In the case of light, therefore, means that stars
moving away from us will have their spectra shifted toward the red end
of the spectrum (red-shifted) and those moving toward us will have
their spectra blue-shifted."

Now, Honest Roberts, you may not like the teaching of superior brother
Stepen Hawking (I don't like it either) but then you should explicitly
declare that superior brother Stephen Hawking's teaching is both wrong
and perniciously misleading. Then we shall return to your own
teaching:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/25239c921a61d6a0
Tom Roberts: "NOTHING that is intrinsic to the light wave "changes".

But then, wavelength is NOT an intrinsic property of a light wave.
What does change with the observer's velocity is the RELATIONSHIP
between the observer's wavelength-measuring apparatus and the light
wave, and this causes differently moving observers to MEASURE
different wavelengths for the same light wave."

Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com

[PD]

Thereby, Hawking shows that the wavelength is not intrinsic at all, but
is observer-dependent, which is what both Tom and I have been telling you.

I gather that you are STILL having difficulty understanding this, even
though Steven Hawking has written this to be targeted at the completely
inexperienced layman.

[Pentcho Valev]

On Dec 20, 2:44 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:

"...what both Tom and I have been telling..."?! Both Big Master and
little zombie are telling something together? Well, this is
suspicious:

Honest Roberts,

Are both you and Clever Draper telling me that Hawking, in the above
text, shows that the wavelength is "observer-dependent"? If yes, I may
come to the conclusion that either two little zombies or two Big
Masters are teaching me.

Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com

[Tom Roberts]

On 12/20/11 12/20/11 - 1:06 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> On Dec 20, 1:10 am, Tom Roberts<tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> On 12/19/11 12/19/11 12:12 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>>> If you are right, Honest Roberts, then Einsteiniana's education
>>> presenting the wavelength as an intrinsic property of the light wave -
>>> as "the distance between crests" - is perniciously misleading:
>>
>> Nobody but you said this is an intrinsic property of the light wave. YOU are
>> wrong. The quote you give is discussing measurements, not intrinsic properties
>> of the light wave.
>

> I referred you to the teaching of superior brother Stephen Hawking
> according to which the wavelength is preformed by the light source -
> by changing its own speed, the light source can change the wavelength
> and then this changed wavelength reaches the stationary observer. In
> other words, the stationary observer receives light characterized by

> some varying INTRINSIC property called "wavelength": [...]

I repeat: you REALLY need to learn how to read. Nothing in your quote implies
that wavelength is intrinsic to the light. Indeed, the quote EXPLICITLY
discusses the observed wavelength to CHANGE when the source changes velocity
relative to the observer. As I said.

Don't expect any more from me until you LEARN HOW TO READ.


Tom Roberts

[Pentcho Valev]

You see, Clever Draper, Master Roberts does not want to confirm your
claim that, in Hawking's text, the wavelength is shown as "observer-
dependent":

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/44772b2cf8b7bca0
Paul Draper: "Thereby, Hawking shows that the wavelength is not

intrinsic at all, but is observer-dependent, which is what both Tom
and I have been telling you."

And you made Master Roberts very angry, Clever Draper. Never again say
"...both Tom and I have been telling..."! Big Master and little zombie
are never telling anything together!

Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com

[PD]

Oh, Pentcho, I think you'll find that Tom Roberts and I have indeed been
telling you the same thing, but that you don't understand the words
enough to see that. This is also apparent when you read statements by
Hawking that actually *confirm* what Tom and I have been telling you,
and you take it to mean exactly the opposite.

Honestly, Pentcho, I think you need different people to tell you the
same thing in word-for-word identical sentences before you understand it.

PD

[Tom Roberts]

On 12/20/11 12/20/11 - 3:20 PM, PD wrote:
> Oh, Pentcho, I think you'll find that Tom Roberts and I have indeed been telling
> you the same thing, but that you don't understand the words enough to see that.
> This is also apparent when you read statements by Hawking that actually
> *confirm* what Tom and I have been telling you, and you take it to mean exactly
> the opposite.
>
> Honestly, Pentcho, I think you need different people to tell you the same thing
> in word-for-word identical sentences before you understand it.

Yes to all that. He REALLY needs to learn how to read.

Tom Roberts

[Michael Moroney]

Huge ego plus an inability to read. Bad combination.

[Jerry]

On Dec 20, 8:20 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
wrote:

> Huge ego plus an inability to read.  Bad combination.

With very few exceptions, that could be said about -any- of the
crackpots who have infested these newsgroups.

Yet exceptions do exist.

Modify your statement slightly to "huge ego plus an lack of
appreciation of the limits of their competence," and you will
encompass, without exception, -all- crackpots.

Jerry

[Androcles]

"Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:527de5f8-c866-47a3...@g41g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...

======================================
Crackpot: a huge ego shithead that can't do math.
Mickey Moron, Humpty Roberts and the faggot Tom&Jeery
are top of the list.

[YBM]

Le 21.12.2011 06:31, Androcles a écrit :
> "Jerry"<Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:527de5f8-c866-47a3...@g41g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 20, 8:20 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
> wrote:
>
>> Huge ego plus an inability to read. Bad combination.
>
> With very few exceptions, that could be said about -any- of the
> crackpots who have infested these newsgroups.
>
> Yet exceptions do exist.
>
> Modify your statement slightly to "huge ego plus an lack of
> appreciation of the limits of their competence," and you will
> encompass, without exception, -all- crackpots.
>
> Jerry
> ======================================
> Crackpot: a huge ego shithead that can't do math.

http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Search/searchresult.html?sw=androcles

You're definitely on top of the list.

[Neo]

On Dec 21, 5:20 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/20/2011 10:26 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 20, 4:45 pm, Tom Roberts<tjrob...@sbcglobal.net>  wrote:
> >> On 12/20/11 12/20/11 - 1:06 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> >>> I referred you to the teaching of superior brother Stephen Hawking
> >>> according to which the wavelength is preformed by the light source -
> >>> by changing its own speed, the light source can change the wavelength
> >>> and then this changed wavelength reaches the stationary observer. In
> >>> other words, the stationary observer receives light characterized by
> >>> some varying INTRINSIC property called "wavelength": [...]
>
> >> I repeat: you REALLY need to learn how to read. Nothing in your quote implies
> >> that wavelength is intrinsic to the light. Indeed, the quote EXPLICITLY
> >> discusses the observed wavelength to CHANGE when the source changes velocity
> >> relative to the observer. As I said.
>
> >> Don't expect any more from me until you LEARN HOW TO READ.
>
> > You see, Clever Draper, Master Roberts does not want to confirm your
> > claim that, in Hawking's text, the wavelength is shown as "observer-
> > dependent":
>

> >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/44772b2cf8b...

> > Paul Draper: "Thereby, Hawking shows that the wavelength is not
> > intrinsic at all, but is observer-dependent, which is what both Tom
> > and I have been telling you."
>
> > And you made Master Roberts very angry, Clever Draper. Never again say
> > "...both Tom and I have been telling..."! Big Master and little zombie
> > are never telling anything together!
>
> Oh, Pentcho, I think you'll find that Tom Roberts and I have indeed been
> telling you the same thing, but that you don't understand the words
> enough to see that. This is also apparent when you read statements by
> Hawking that actually *confirm* what Tom and I have been telling you,
> and you take it to mean exactly the opposite.
>
> Honestly, Pentcho, I think you need different people to tell you the
> same thing in word-for-word identical sentences before you understand it.
>

> PD- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Pentcho. I'll try to explain to your what Tom and PD were trying to
tell you. First. Know that the physical world is a myth. Everything is
just information. Relativity of Simultaneity occurs because there is
no physical world and hence no absolute space and time. Everything are
just about relationships and there are many outputs in the program.
This is why measuring device can have different measurements between
it and the object because the program uses an invariant subroutine
called Lorentz Transformation. You may have difficulty with the
concept because you live amidst people and even scientists who believe
the world is physical. Many of them need these crutches so their
brains can function normally. For example. Tom Roberts won't tell you
we are living inside a computer program. He would rather tell you
physics is about modelling reality and not describing reality. This is
all he can tell you. He needs this belief system so he won't have to
wonder what is really out there. Do you understand? You, on the other
hand and mpc755 have intense leftover memory of the real world behind
this Matrix we live in. This is why you can never accept relativity
because you know it is just illusion. In other words. You and the
likes of mpc755 can see through the illusion. You have strong traces
of the original world. It is beings like you who can awaken from the
Matrix and engage the machines that created this computer generated
dreamworld. Does all make sense now before I continue?

[Thomas Heger]

Am 20.12.2011 01:05, schrieb Tom Roberts:
> On 12/18/11 12/18/11 6:35 PM, Neo wrote:
>> On Dec 19, 8:20 am, Tom Roberts<tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> What does change with the observer's velocity is the RELATIONSHIP
>>> between the
>>> observer's wavelength-measuring apparatus and the light wave, and
>>> this causes
>>> differently moving observers to MEASURE different wavelengths for the
>>> same light
>>> wave.
>>
>> How about the length of a train contracted to a mere 0.1mm near the
>> speed of light? Are you saying that it is the relationship between the
>> observer measuring apparatus and the light wave emitted from the
>> train?

This is, what 'length contraction' means.

So a train of two hundred meters length could shrink in length to one
millimetre at near speed of light.

But only length shrinks, hence the train turns into a 'pancake', but
only in the FoR with lateral movement parallel at almost c.
In its own FoR it doesn't change, hence doesn't move.

So the very word 'space' must be relative.

Since space is defined over light, the speed of light could stay the same.

But what would not stay the same is 'space' itself and the measure (and
'direction') of time. And we could assume, that the object itself could
completely vanish, if accelerated a bit more (vanish in a black hole).


We could turn this around and search for effects, where something comes
seemingly out of no-where.

Such effects exist and one is called beta-decay, another one is called
'big-bang'.

TH

[Androcles]

"Thomas Heger" <ttt...@web.de> wrote in message
news:9lm4g2...@mid.individual.net...

| Am 20.12.2011 01:05, schrieb Tom Roberts:
| > On 12/18/11 12/18/11 6:35 PM, Neo wrote:
| >> On Dec 19, 8:20 am, Tom Roberts<tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
| >>> What does change with the observer's velocity is the RELATIONSHIP
| >>> between the
| >>> observer's wavelength-measuring apparatus and the light wave, and
| >>> this causes
| >>> differently moving observers to MEASURE different wavelengths for the
| >>> same light
| >>> wave.
| >>
| >> How about the length of a train contracted to a mere 0.1mm near the
| >> speed of light? Are you saying that it is the relationship between the
| >> observer measuring apparatus and the light wave emitted from the
| >> train?
|
| This is, what 'length contraction' means.
|
| So a train of two hundred meters length could shrink in length to one
| millimetre at near speed of light.
|

Bwahahahahahaha!
200 meters / sqrt( 1-0.999^2) = 200/0.044710177812216314199613423002048
= 4473.254408425844342132408504457

A train of 200 metres length expands to over 4 kilometres at near speed of
light,
according to Special BrainFucktivity.

[Tom Roberts]

On 12/24/11 12/24/11 8:04 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 20.12.2011 01:05, schrieb Tom Roberts:
>> On 12/18/11 12/18/11 6:35 PM, Neo wrote:
>>> On Dec 19, 8:20 am, Tom Roberts<tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>> What does change with the observer's velocity is the RELATIONSHIP
>>>> between the
>>>> observer's wavelength-measuring apparatus and the light wave, and
>>>> this causes
>>>> differently moving observers to MEASURE different wavelengths for the
>>>> same light
>>>> wave.
>>>
>>> How about the length of a train contracted to a mere 0.1mm near the
>>> speed of light? Are you saying that it is the relationship between the
>>> observer measuring apparatus and the light wave emitted from the
>>> train?
>
> This is, what 'length contraction' means.

Hmmmm, you appear to be confused.

> So a train of two hundred meters length could shrink in length to one millimetre
> at near speed of light.

No. It is not THE TRAIN that "shrinks", it is the RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TRAIN
AND THE MEASURING INSTRUMENT that changes, such that a reduced length is
measured. For uniform motion at any speed, the train ITSELF is unchanged, and
people aboard notice nothing different from when they were at rest. Note that
both "motion" and "at rest" must be specified relative to some inertial
coordinate system.

> But only length shrinks, hence the train turns into a 'pancake', but only in the
> FoR with lateral movement parallel at almost c.
> In its own FoR it doesn't change, hence doesn't move.

This is basically correct, but poorly stated.

> So the very word 'space' must be relative.

Hmmm. In relativity, spacetime must be foliated into space and time, and the
choice of foliation does indeed determine what space is -- so it is "relative"
the the analyst's choice (but that is an unusual usage of the word). In essence,
in SR such a foliation requires specifying an inertial set of coordinates.

> Since space is defined over light,

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. "Over" is not a valid relationship
between space and light.

> We could turn this around and search for effects, where something comes
> seemingly out of no-where.

Again, your word salad is incomprehensible to me.

> Such effects exist and one is called beta-decay, another one is called 'big-bang'.

Beta decay is not at all "coming seemingly out of nowhere" -- a nucleus decays,
and the resulting products have less mass than than the original nucleus, but
nonzero kinetic energy in the rest frame of the original nucleus. A nucleus is
not "nowhere".

The big bang is indeed "out of nowhere". yes, that is a puzzle....


Tom Roberts

[Thomas Heger]

Am 24.12.2011 17:47, schrieb Tom Roberts:
> On 12/24/11 12/24/11 8:04 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 20.12.2011 01:05, schrieb Tom Roberts:

..

>> So a train of two hundred meters length could shrink in length to one
>> millimetre
>> at near speed of light.
>
> No. It is not THE TRAIN that "shrinks", it is the RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
> THE TRAIN AND THE MEASURING INSTRUMENT that changes, such that a reduced
> length is measured. For uniform motion at any speed, the train ITSELF is
> unchanged, and people aboard notice nothing different from when they
> were at rest. Note that both "motion" and "at rest" must be specified
> relative to some inertial coordinate system.
>
>
>> But only length shrinks, hence the train turns into a 'pancake', but
>> only in the
>> FoR with lateral movement parallel at almost c.
>> In its own FoR it doesn't change, hence doesn't move.
>
> This is basically correct, but poorly stated.
>
>
>> So the very word 'space' must be relative.
>
> Hmmm. In relativity, spacetime must be foliated into space and time, and
> the choice of foliation does indeed determine what space is -- so it is
> "relative" the the analyst's choice (but that is an unusual usage of the
> word). In essence, in SR such a foliation requires specifying an
> inertial set of coordinates.

In SRT we have a lateral movement of FoR, while I discuss FoRs in an
angle, where time-axis is a bit spacelike and vice versa. This is more
related to GR than to SRT.
I assume a certain kind of spacetime to be real. What you call foliation
I try to depict as moving sheets.

Imagine a light cone with timelike axis vertical. Than we have an
inverse, what is a sheet and called spacelike.
This sheet is multiplied by three, because in a light-cone one dimension
is missing.
The space we see is not spacelike, but our own past light cone. This
means, the stars and the universe are a picture, that we regard as
separated in space (the 'universe'). But this is a picture, that does
not match reality.

The real thing are these 'sheets', that could be modelled with complex
numbers. a point in that picture belongs to three of these sheet and
moving along its trajectory, the complex sheet are 'cut' into space and
time.

This is my concept. Sorry my English not as perfect as it could and my
terminology is certainly amateurish. But I think the idea has merits.

Long version here:
( https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 )

>
>> Since space is defined over light,
>
> I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. "Over" is not a valid
> relationship between space and light.

Sorry, That 'over' is a German phrase ('über') in direct translation.
Actually I mean that light is used to define, what space is. Distance in
the universe is defined with the time that light travels. The vacuum is
the space, where light passes through, empty space, if in a straight line.

>

>> We could turn this around and search for effects, where something comes
>> seemingly out of no-where.
>
> Again, your word salad is incomprehensible to me.

Well, I try again.
One puzzle in physics is the source of energy for radioactivity. If I
assume the opposite to a black whole and call that white hole and regard
an atom as 'micro-bang', this would allow energy streaming from kind of
'hidden space'.

>> Such effects exist and one is called beta-decay, another one is called
>> 'big-bang'.
>
> Beta decay is not at all "coming seemingly out of nowhere" -- a nucleus
> decays, and the resulting products have less mass than than the original
> nucleus, but nonzero kinetic energy in the rest frame of the original
> nucleus. A nucleus is not "nowhere".

Well, that's not the case. This is the problem of the energy source. The
seemingly correct answer is provided through the standard modell, while
I try to develop an alternative.

> The big bang is indeed "out of nowhere". yes, that is a puzzle....
>

Maybe 'nowhere' just means 'invisible', but that invisible space is
real, only hidden.


TH