A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

EINSTEIN AGAINST SANE SCIENCE



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 10th 14, 08:55 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default EINSTEIN AGAINST SANE SCIENCE

The observer starts moving with (small) speed v towards the light source:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE
"Doppler effect - when an observer moves towards a stationary source. ...the velocity of the wave relative to the observer is faster than that when it is still."

Newton's emission theory of light: The speed of the light relative to the observer shifts from c to c'=c+v, which causes the frequency measured by the observer to shift from f=c/L to f'=(c+v)/L, where L is the wavelength.

Maxwell's electromagnetic theory: The speed of the light relative to the observer shifts from c to c'=c+v, which causes the frequency measured by the observer to shift from f=c/L to f'=(c+v)/L.

From analogy with all other waves: The speed of the light relative to the observer shifts from c to c'=c+v, which causes the frequency measured by the observer to shift from f=c/L to f'=(c+v)/L.

Einstein's relativity: The speed of the light relative to the observer does not shift at all (c'=c) but the frequency measured by the observer somehow does shift from f=c/L to f'=(c+v)/L. The effect (frequency shift) is exactly the same, the cause is different.

Pentcho Valev
  #2  
Old June 11th 14, 07:50 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default EINSTEIN AGAINST SANE SCIENCE

http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/...relativity.htm
John Stachel: "But here he ran into the most blatant-seeming contradiction, which I mentioned earlier when first discussing the two principles. As noted then, the Maxwell-Lorentz equations imply that there exists (at least) one inertial frame in which the speed of light is a constant regardless of the motion of the light source. Einstein's version of the relativity principle (minus the ether) requires that, if this is true for one inertial frame, it must be true for all inertial frames. 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."

Einstein legitimized the nonsense by introducing another nonsense - the idiotic special relativistic time allowing Einsteinians to jump millions of years ahead in the future. Nowadays some relativists are desperately trying to get rid of the latter nonsense but still don't have the courage to attack the former:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013...reality-review
Philip Ball: "Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end, says [Lee] Smolin."

Pentcho Valev
  #3  
Old June 12th 14, 09:36 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default EINSTEIN AGAINST SANE SCIENCE

An initially stationary observer starts moving with (small) speed v towards the light source:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE
"Doppler effect - when an observer moves towards a stationary source. ...the velocity of the wave relative to the observer is faster than that when it is still."

Sane people clearly see that the speed of the light relative to the observer shifts from c to c'=c+v, which causes the frequency measured by the observer to shift from f=c/L to f'=(c+v)/L=f(1+v/c), where L is either the wavelength or the distance between subsequent pulses. Since this is fatal for Einstein's relativity, Einsteinians have no other choice but to advance the insane assertion that the wavelength (or the distance between subsequent pulses) somehow changes for the moving observer so that he always measures the speed of the light to be c, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ved/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)."

Yet, although the varying-wavelength assertion is the only salvation for Einstein's relativity, it is so idiotic that almost all Einsteinians reject it, implicitly as a rule but sometimes explicitly:

http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler
Albert Einstein Institute: "Here is an animation of the receiver moving towards the source: (...) 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."

http://researcher.nsc.gov.tw/public/...1016202571.pdf
Fang-Yuh Lo, Department of Physics, National Taiwan Normal University: "Observer moves toward source: frequency becomes higher. Observer moves away from source: frequency becomes lower. How much higher (lower)? Wavelength does not change. Change in velocity: Vnew=Vwave±Vobs."

http://physics.ucsd.edu/students/cou...cs2c/Waves.pdf
"Doppler effect (...) Let u be speed of source or observer (...) Doppler Shift: Moving Observer. Shift in frequency only, wavelength does not change. Speed observed = v+u (...) Observed frequency shift f'=f(1±u/v)"

http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp...9_doppler.html
"The Doppler effect is the shift in frequency of a wave that occurs when the wave source, or the detector of the wave, is moving. Applications of the Doppler effect range from medical tests using ultrasound to radar detectors and astronomy (with electromagnetic waves). (...) We will focus on sound waves in describing the Doppler effect, but it works for other waves too. (....) 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'/(lambda)=(v+vO)/(lambda)."

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.hep.man.ac.uk/u/roger/PHY.../lecture18.pdf
Roger Barlow, Professor of Particle Physics: "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/(lambda) waves pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/(lambda). So f'=(c+v)/(lambda)."

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...ml/node41.html
University of Texas: "Thus, the moving observer sees a wave possessing the same wavelength (...) but a different frequency (...) to that seen by the stationary observer. This phenomenon is known as the Doppler effect."

http://www.donbosco-tournai.be/expo-...fetDoppler.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 !"

Pentcho Valev
  #4  
Old June 14th 14, 05:17 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default EINSTEIN AGAINST SANE SCIENCE

Einstein's 1905 asumption that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the source was false but not unreasonable - all waves different from light behave in that way. Combined with the principle of relativity, however, this false assumption produces the idiotic conclusion that the speed of light (relative to the observer) is independent of the speed of the observer as well. This is so absurd that sometimes Einsteinians unwittingly reject it and teach the truth:

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: (...) 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."

The speed of the light relative to the source is c=3d/t (d is "the distance between subsequent pulses", t is "the time it takes the source to emit three pulses"). Accordingly, the speed of the light relative to the moving receiver (observer) is:

c' = 4d/t = (4/3)c (special relativity violated)

and the frequency the moving receiver measures is:

f' = c'/d

The relativistic corrections change essentially nothing. The speed of the receiver is (1/3)c so gamma is 1.05. Accordingly, the corrected frequency is (1.05)*f' and the corrected speed of light is (1.05)*c'. Special relativity is even more violated.

Pentcho Valev
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
SPECIAL RELATIVITY AND SANE SCIENCE Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 6 October 18th 13 01:04 PM
How Can Anyone Sane Person Still Believe Einstein? Androcles[_33_] Astronomy Misc 92 November 2nd 10 04:44 PM
THE PERVERSE SCIENCE OF ALBERT EINSTEIN Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 4 August 10th 07 07:16 PM
EINSTEIN AND THE END OF SCIENCE Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 14 June 26th 07 10:36 AM
Any Sane People Here? [email protected] Space Shuttle 64 September 8th 03 04:45 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.