![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Max Tegmark: "Observed properties of speed of light. Does speed depend on motion of source? No! Does speed depend on motion of observer (frame)? No! Does c depend on source motion? Does speed of a bullet depend on speed of rifle? Does sound speed of a gun shot depend on speed of rifle? Binary stars provide great test. If velocities add, then... You'd see things moving backward in time. Answer: No dependence on source motion observed (and should be dramatic). Does c depend on observer motion (frame)? No 1st order effect had been seen. Michelson-Morley experiment hammered it. But they saw no fringe shift at all! So c appears not to depend on frame." http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8...s/symmetry.pdf
Max Tegmark: "We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Everything is relative, even simultaneity, and soon Einstein's become a de facto physics deity. 'cos we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ In their early education Einsteinians are told various idiocies, repeatedly, until in the end they become indistinguishable from Bingo the Clowno: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gX5ajyPr96M Bingo the Clowno Here is a clear example of the conversion of normal people into thoughtless Bingos: Initially Joe Wolfe's students are sure that the speed of light cannot be the same for differently moving observers but in the end all of them get the name Bingo the Einsteiniano: http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einstein...eird_logic.htm Joe Wolfe: "At this stage, many of my students say things like "The invariance of the speed of light among observers is impossible" or "I can't understand it". Well, it's not impossible. It's even more than possible, it is true. This is something that has been extensively measured, and many refinements to the Michelson and Morley experiment, and complementary experiments have confirmed this invariance to very great precision. As to understanding it, there isn't really much to understand. However surprising and weird it may be, it is the case. It's the law in our universe. The fact of the invariance of c doesn't take much understanding." Pentcho Valev |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Bingo the Einsteiniano, professor of physics at the University of California, Davis. A synopsis of his teaching: The speed of light is constant by definition. Einstein said the speed of light is variable in a gravitational field - an interpretation which is "perfectly valid and makes good physical sense" - but after Einstein the speed of light in a gravitational field became constant. So constant that "it does not even make any sense to say that it varies". On the other hand, "light falls with twice the acceleration of ordinary slow matter":
http://www.desy.de/user/projects/Phy..._of_light.html Steve Carlip: "Is c, the speed of light in vacuum, constant? At the 1983 Conference Generale des Poids et Mesures, the following SI (Systeme International) definition of the metre was adopted: The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second. This defines the speed of light in vacuum to be exactly 299,792,458 m/s. This provides a very short answer to the question "Is c constant": Yes, c is constant by definition! [...] Einstein went on to discover a more general theory of relativity which explained gravity in terms of curved spacetime, and he talked about the speed of light changing in this new theory. In the 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: "...according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [...] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position." Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector quantity: speed with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not clear that he meant the speed will change, but the reference to special relativity suggests that he did mean so. This interpretation is perfectly valid and makes good physical sense, but a more modern interpretation is that the speed of light is constant in general relativity. [...] Finally, we come to the conclusion that the speed of light is not only observed to be constant; in the light of well tested theories of physics, it does not even make any sense to say that it varies." http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9909014v1.pdf Steve Carlip: "It is well known that the deflection of light is twice that predicted by Newtonian theory; in this sense, at least, light falls with twice the acceleration of ordinary "slow" matter." Pentcho Valev |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Professor Bingo the Einsteiniano (aka Brian Cox) flies towards the spotlight at 0.75c and informs the gullible audience that the light hits him in the face at c, not 1.75c, and that this was a prediction of Maxwell's 19th century theory:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mpw68rvF4pc Einstein's Relativity This independence of the speed of light from the speed of the observer is too idiotic to be Maxwell's idea - it can only be Einstein's idea: http://www.aip.org/history/exhibits/...relativity.htm John Stachel: "But this seems to be nonsense. How can it happen that the speed of light relative to an observer cannot be increased or decreased if that observer moves towards or away from a light beam? Einstein states that he wrestled with this problem over a lengthy period of time, to the point of despair." "Nonsense" is euphemism - the correct term is "idiocy". When the observer starts moving towards the light source with speed v, the frequency he measures shifts from f=c/λ to f'=(c+v)/λ=f(1+v/c): http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/roger/PHY.../lecture18.pdf "The Doppler effect - changes in frequencies when sources or observers are in motion - is familiar to anyone who has stood at the roadside and watched (and listened) to the cars go by. It applies to all types of wave, not just sound. [...] Moving Observer. Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer is moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/λ waves pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/λ. So f'=(c+v)/λ." http://docplayer.net/35188128-Modern...ecture-35.html "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." Does this mean that the speed of the light relative to the observer shifts from c to c'=c+v? Yes. Consider the following setup: A light source emits a series of pulses equally distanced from one another. A stationary observer (receiver) measures the speed of the pulses to be c and the frequency to be f=c/d, where d is the distance between the pulses: http://www.einstein-online.info/imag...ler_static.gif The observer starts moving with constant speed v towards the light source - the frequency he measures shifts from f=c/d to f'=(c+v)/d: http://www.einstein-online.info/imag...ector_blue.gif The following formula is correct: f' = c'/d where c' is the speed of the pulses as measured by the moving observer. Clearly, c' = c + v. That is, the speed of the pulses varies with the speed of the observer, in violation of Einstein's relativity. Any correct interpretation of the Doppler effect unavoidably leads to the same conclusion: http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp...9_doppler.html "Let's say you, the observer, now move toward the source with velocity vo. You encounter more waves per unit time than you did before. Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed: v'=v+vo. The frequency of the waves you detect is higher, and is given by: f'=v'/λ=(v+vo)/λ." http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php "vo is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + vo. [...] The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time." http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler Albert Einstein Institute: "The frequency of a wave-like signal - such as sound or light - depends on the movement of the sender and of the receiver. This is known as the Doppler effect. [...] Here is an animation of the receiver moving towards the source: Stationary receiver: http://www.einstein-online.info/imag...ler_static.gif Moving receiver: http://www.einstein-online.info/imag...ector_blue.gif By observing the two indicator lights, you can see for yourself that, once more, there is a blue-shift - the pulse frequency measured at the receiver is somewhat higher than the frequency with which the pulses are sent out. This time, the distances between subsequent pulses are not affected, but still there is a frequency shift: As the receiver moves towards each pulse, the time until pulse and receiver meet up is shortened. In this particular animation, which has the receiver moving towards the source at one third the speed of the pulses themselves, four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses." [end of quotation] Let us jump into the moving receiver's frame of reference. The frequency we measure is f' = (c + (1/3)c)/d where d is the distance between subsequent pulses. The speed of the pulses relative to us is, accordingly, c' = df' = (4/3)c = 400000 km/s, in violation of Einstein's relativity. Einsteinians may wish to introduce relativistic corrections (time dilation), in an attempt to save Divine Albert's Divine Theory. The effect would be small and, to their surprise, in the unfavorable direction. The speed of the moving receiver is (1/3)c so gamma is 1.05. Accordingly, the corrected f' is (1.05)*(4/3) s^(-1) and the corrected c' is (1.05)*(400000) km/s. Einstein's relativity is even more violated. Pentcho Valev |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
THE SCIENCE OF BINGO THE EINSTEINIANO | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 6 | June 23rd 15 10:13 PM |
BINGO THE EINSTEINIANO TEACHES THE TWIN PARADOX | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 1 | April 28th 13 07:55 AM |
BINGO THE EINSTEINIANO DEBUNBKS EINSTEIN | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 3 | April 23rd 13 05:53 AM |
BINGO THE EINSTEINIANO TEACHES DOPPLER EFFECT | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 5 | April 21st 13 06:56 PM |
BINGO THE EINSTEINIANO | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 11 | April 11th 13 04:37 PM |