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

THE OBVIOUS ABSURDITY OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 25th 13, 09:21 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default THE OBVIOUS ABSURDITY OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-.../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."

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. (...) On the right-hand side, drawn in green, there is a sender that emits pulses in regular succession. On the left-hand side there is a receiver, drawn in blue. (...) Next, let us look at a slightly different situation, where the source is moving towards the detector. We assume that the motion of the sender does not influence the speed at which the pulses travel, and that the pulses are sent with the same frequency as before. Still, as we can see in the following animation, the motion influences the pulse pattern: The distance between successive pulses is now smaller than when both sender and receiver were at rest. Consequently, the pulses arrive at the receiver in quicker succession."

This shortening of the wavelength or the distance between successive pulses caused by the motion of the emitter is obviously absurd in the case of light waves. It implies that the speed of light relative to the emitter varies with the speed of the emitter, as in the case of sound waves or light waves in an ether. Let f, L and c be, respectively, the frequency, wavelength (or distance between successive pulses) and speed of light relative to a stationary emitter: c = Lf. Then, if the emitter starts moving towards the observer/receiver and, as a result, the wavelength (or distance between successive pulses) shortens from L to L', the speed of light relative to the emitter becomes smaller than c: c' = L'f.

The only escape from the absurd situation is to advance an explanation of the sort: "The wavelength (or distance between successive pulses) does vary with the speed of the emitter but not for an observer in the frame of the moving emitter - unlike other observers, this observer is unable to see or measure the shift in wavelength (or distance between successive pulses)." Einsteinians love to explain the absurd in terms of the more absurd.

Another absurd situation obtains when the emitter is stationary and the observer/receiver moving. In this scenario, in order for the speed of light relative to the observer/receiver to remain constant (Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity), the motion of the observer/receiver must miraculously change the wavelength (or distance between successive pulses) of the incoming light. This change can only be seen or measured by the moving observer/receiver but not by other observers - e.g. the stationary observer in the frame of the emitter.

This second situation is unbearably absurd even in the schizophrenic atmosphere of Divine Albert's world where, as a rule, "anything goes". So one sometimes gathers courage and states the truth in an explicit way: The motion of the observer/receiver does not change the wavelength (or distance between successive pulses); rather, as the observer/receiver moves relative to the stationary emitter, the speed of light relative to the observer/receiver changes (which violates special relativity of course):

http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler
Albert Einstein Institute: "In the above paragraphs, we have only considered moving sources. In fact, a closer look at cases where it is the receiver that is in motion will show that this kind of motion leads to a very similar kind of 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."

http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp...9_doppler.html
Professor Sidney Redner: "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.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
  #2  
Old November 25th 13, 08:31 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default THE OBVIOUS ABSURDITY OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf
Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, David Morin, Cambridge University Press, Chapter 11, p. 14: "Twin A stays on the earth, while twin B flies quickly to a distant star and back. (...) For the entire outward and return parts of the trip, B does observe A's clock running slow, but enough strangeness occurs during the turning-around period to make A end up older."

That is, the travelling twin is getting older than his sedentary brother all along except for the short turning-around period when the traveller suffers acceleration and some strangeness occurs... What strangeness? John Norton teaches that, during the short turning-around period, "the traveler will judge the stay-at-home twin's clock to have jumped suddenly from reading 1 day to reading 7 days":

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...yon/index.html
John Norton: "Then, at the end of the outward leg, the traveler abruptly changes motion, accelerating sharply to adopt a new inertial motion directed back to earth. What comes now is the key part of the analysis. The effect of the change of motion is to alter completely the traveler's judgment of simultaneity. The traveler's hypersurfaces of simultaneity now flip up dramatically. Moments after the turn-around, when the travelers clock reads just after 2 days, the traveler will judge the stay-at-home twin's clock to read just after 7 days. That is, the traveler will judge the stay-at-home twin's clock to have jumped suddenly from reading 1 day to reading 7 days. This huge jump puts the stay-at-home twin's clock so far ahead of the traveler's that it is now possible for the stay-at-home twin's clock to be ahead of the travelers when they reunite."

In contrast, Gary Gibbons, FRS, teaches that the turning-around period in which the traveller suffers acceleration is of no importance at all:

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/research/...tivity2010.pdf
Gary W. Gibbons FRS: "In other words, by simply staying at home Jack has aged relative to Jill. There is no paradox because the lives of the twins are not strictly symmetrical. This might lead one to suspect that the accelerations suffered by Jill might be responsible for the effect. However this is simply not plausible because using identical accelerating phases of her trip, she could have travelled twice as far. This would give twice the amount of time gained."

Finally, David Morin completes the brainwashing of Einsteinians by adding that "a discussion of acceleration is not required to quantitatively understand the paradox":

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf
Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, David Morin, Cambridge University Press, Chapter 11, p. 14: "Example (Twin paradox): Twin A stays on the earth, while twin B flies quickly to a distant star and back. Show that B is younger than A when they meet up again. (...) For the entire outward and return parts of the trip, B does observe A's clock running slow, but enough strangeness occurs during the turning-around period to make A end up older. Note, however, that a discussion of acceleration is not required to quantitatively understand the paradox..."

An Einsteinian after the brainwashing:

http://images.bridgemanart.com/api/1...475/280149.jpg

Pentcho Valev
  #3  
Old November 26th 13, 01:14 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default THE OBVIOUS ABSURDITY OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

http://www.relativitycalculator.com/...ht_English.pdf
On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light, by A. Einstein. Annalen der Physik, 35, pp. 898-908, 1911: "...If we call the velocity of light at the origin of coordinates c_o, then the velocity of light c at a location with the gravitation potential phi will be given by the relation c = c_o(1+phi/c^2)."

Einstein had plagiarized this (correct) equation from Newton's emission theory of light - his purpose in the 1911 paper was to camouflage this fact and confuse the whole issue by introducing his idiotic "gravitational time dilation".

Then in the final 1915 version of general relativity the speed of light in a gravitational field became two times more variable than the speed of ordinary matter - the correct equation c = c_o(1+phi/c^2) was replaced by the absurd equation c = c_o(1+2phi/c^2). This greater variability of the speed of light predicted by general relativity is a grand secret between knowledgeable Einsteinians - I have found only a few references on internet, e.g.. this one:

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."

Most Einsteinians neither know nor care about the greater variability of the speed of light predicted by Einstein's general relativity. They just teach that the speed of light in a gravitational field is constant and that's it, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity:

http://www.oapt.ca/newsletter/2004-0...Searchable.pdf
Richard Epp: "One may imagine the photon losing energy as it climbs against the Earth's gravitational field much like a rock thrown upward loses kinetic energy as it slows down, the main difference being that the photon does not slow down; it always moves at the speed of light."

http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-.../dp/0553380168
Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, Chapter 6: "A cannonball fired upward from the earth will be slowed down by gravity and will eventually stop and fall back; a photon, however, must continue upward at a constant speed..."

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-mc2-S.../dp/0306817586
Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw, p. 236: "If the light falls in strict accord with the principle of equivalence, then, as it falls, its energy should increase by exactly the same fraction that it increases for any other thing we could imagine dropping. We need to know what happens to the light as it gains energy. In other words, what can Pound and Rebka expect to see at the bottom of their laboratory when the dropped light arrives? There is only one way for the light to increase its energy. We know that it cannot speed up, because it is already traveling at the universal speed limit, but it can increase its frequency."

Pentcho Valev
  #4  
Old November 27th 13, 10:17 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default THE OBVIOUS ABSURDITY OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

The Michelson-Morley experiment confirms the assumption that the speed of light depends on the speed of the emitter and refutes the assumption that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the emitter unless lengths gloriously contract so that the experiment can confirm the independence and refute the dependence, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity:

http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann, p.92: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."

That is, in order for the Michelson-Morley experiment to confirm Divine Albert and refute Newton, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity, arbitrarily long objects are gloriously trapped inside arbitrarily short containers, with or without compression:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...barn_pole.html
"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in the barn. (...) If it does not explode under the strain and it is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be trapped IN A COMPRESSED STATE inside the barn."

http://www.quebecscience.qc.ca/Revolutions
Stéphane Durand: "Ainsi, une fusée de 100 m passant à toute vitesse dans un tunnel de 60 m pourrait être entièrement contenue dans ce tunnel pendant une fraction de seconde, durant laquelle il serait possible de fermer des portes aux deux bouts! La fusée est donc réellement plus courte. Pourtant, il n'y a PAS DE COMPRESSION matérielle ou physique de l'engin."

http://alcor.concordia.ca/~scol/semi...ts/Durand.html
Stéphane Durand: "La contraction une longueur est un phénomène à la fois réel mais sans déformation structurelle. C'est un phénomène réel (et non pas une illusion) car, par exemple, une perche dont la longueur au repos est plus grande que la longueur au repos d'une grange peut réellement être contenue dans cette dernière si elle se déplace assez rapidement. Par contre, il ne peut y avoir de contraction structurelle de la perche, i.e de déformation matérielle de l'objet, car la contraction de sa longueur aurait aussi lieu si c'était plutôt l'observateur qui se mettait en mouvement sans changer l'état de mouvement de la perche. Autrement dit, sans changer l'état de la perche, en se mettant soi-même en mouvement, on change sa longueur: ce n'est donc clairement pas une contraction matérielle (l'état de la perche est le même dans les deux cas). De plus, si deux observateurs se mettent en mouvement à des vitesses différentes par rapport à la perche, ces deux observateurs vont mesurer une longueur différente de la même perche. Une situation inexplicable en termes de contraction matérielle de la perche."

http://www.parabola.unsw.edu.au/vol3...ol35_no1_2.pdf
"Suppose you want to fit a 20m pole into a 10m barn. (...) Hence in both frames of reference, the pole fits inside the barn (and will presumably shatter when the doors are closed)."

Pentcho Valev
  #5  
Old November 27th 13, 03:54 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default THE OBVIOUS ABSURDITY OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

Philip Ball and Lee Smolin are doing all the running they can do to get rid of the idiotic special relativistic time - a consequence of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate - and keep close to the postulate itself, to be able to worship it as ecstatically as possible:

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."

http://www.independent.com/news/2013...7/time-reborn/
QUESTION: Setting aside any other debates about relativity theory for the moment, why would the speed of light be absolute? No other speeds are absolute, that is, all other speeds do indeed change in relation to the speed of the observer, so it's always seemed a rather strange notion to me.
LEE SMOLIN: Special relativity works extremely well and the postulate of the invariance or universality of the speed of light is extremely well-tested. It might be wrong in the end but it is an extremely good approximation to reality.
QUESTION: So let me pick a bit more on Einstein and ask you this: You write (p. 56) that Einstein showed that simultaneity is relative. But the conclusion of the relativity of simultaneity flows necessarily from Einstein's postulates (that the speed of light is absolute and that the laws of nature are relative). So he didn't really show that simultaneity was relative - he assumed it. What do I have wrong here?
LEE SMOLIN: The relativity of simultaneity is a consequence of the two postulates that Einstein proposed and so it is deduced from the postulates. The postulates and their consequences are then checked experimentally and, so far, they hold remarkably well.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/12/12-h/12-h.htm
'Well, in OUR country,' said Alice, still panting a little, 'you'd generally get to somewhere else - if you ran very fast for a long time, as we've been doing.' 'A slow sort of country!' said the Queen. 'Now, HERE, you see, it takes all the running YOU can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!'

http://img.scoop.it/HhCN9Yzy1E-aNqb0...0xjctABnaLJIm9

Pentcho Valev
  #6  
Old December 3rd 13, 08:04 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default THE OBVIOUS ABSURDITY OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SC0Q6-xt-Xs
"Doppler effect - when an observer moves away from a stationary source. Pay attention to the velocity of the wave relative to the observer. When an observer moves away from a stationary source, the period of the wave emitted by a source is longer and the observed frequency is lower. Because the velocity of the wave relative to the observer is slower than that when it is still."

The variation of the speed of the wave (relative to the observer) with the speed of the observer holds for all kinds of waves and is fatal for special relativity. For the sake of argument, let us assume that the above video concerns only sound waves while for light waves the picture is different. Is it? No, the picture for light waves is exactly the same:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=EVzUyE2oD1w
Dr Ricardo Eusebi: "f'=f(1+v/c). Light frequency is relative to the observer. The velocity is not though. The velocity is the same in all the reference frames."

Note however that Dr Ricardo Eusebi does not see the variation of the speed of the wave with the speed of the observer. Why? Because in Divine Albert's world the old principle of Ignatius of Loyola is valid and Dr Ricardo Eusebi obeys it:

Ignatius of Loyola: "That we may be altogether of the same mind and in conformity with the Church herself, if she shall have defined anything to be black which appears to our eyes to be white, we ought in like manner to pronounce it to be black."

Pentcho Valev
  #7  
Old December 4th 13, 12:05 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default THE OBVIOUS ABSURDITY OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

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. (...) 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: f'=(1+v/c)(gamma)f..."

In the non-relativistic case (v is small and gamma is virtually unity), as the observer starts moving towards the light source with speed v, the speed of the light waves relative to him shifts from c to c'=c+v, and this causes the frequency he measures to shift from f=c/(lambda) to f'=c'/(lambda)=(c+v)/(lambda)=(1+v/c)f. Special relativity is violated - the speed of light relative to the observer varies with the speed of the observer.

In the relativistic case (v is great and accordingly Einsteinians take into account time dilation), as the observer starts moving towards the light source with speed v, the speed of the light waves relative to him shifts from c to c'=(c+v)(gamma), and this causes the frequency he measures to shift from f=c/(lambda) to f'=c'/(lambda)=(c+v)(gamma)/(lambda)=(1+v/c)(gamma)f. Special relativity is violated again.

If v is small enough, in both the non-relativistic and relativistic case we have c'=c+v, which means that the speed of light relative to the observer varies with the speed of the observer as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light and in violation of special relativity.

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
THE OFFICIAL END OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY? Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 12 September 22nd 11 08:08 PM
VERIFICATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 11 July 4th 11 02:51 PM
EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY UNBEARABLE Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 13 February 12th 11 04:55 PM
GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 962 December 17th 07 01:45 PM
Einstein "Theory of Relativity" Lester Solnin Solar 7 April 13th 05 08:17 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:38 PM.


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.