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

IDIOCY CALLED SPECIAL RELATIVITY



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 25th 15, 08:33 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default IDIOCY CALLED SPECIAL RELATIVITY

Einsteinians teach that, for all kinds of waves (light waves included), the wavefronts bunch up (the wavelength decreases) in front of a wave source which starts moving towards the observer:

http://www.einstein-online.info/imag...ler_static.gif (stationary source)

http://www.einstein-online.info/imag...ource_blue.gif (moving source)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4OnBYrbCjY
"The Doppler Effect: what does motion do to waves?"

http://www.fisica.net/relatividade/s...ry_of_time.pdf
Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 3: "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."

For waves other than light waves the moving source does indeed emit shorter wavelength, and the shortening is measured by all observers, including one attached to the wave source, to be the same. That is, all observers measure the wavelength to be L when the source is stationary, and then all of them measure the wavelength to be L' (LL') when the source is moving.

For light waves this is obviously not the case - if it were, the principle of relativity would be violated. An observer attached to the light source measures the wavelength to be L when both the source and the observer are stationary, and then he measures the wavelength to be L again when both the source and the observer are moving, which means that the wavefronts DO NOT BUNCH UP in front of the moving source.

Conclusion: The moving light source does not emit shorter wavelength - rather, it emits faster light. If the source starts moving towards the observer with speed v, the speed of the light relative to the observer shifts from c to c'=c+v, as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light and in violation of Einstein's relativity. Accordingly, the frequency measured by the stationary observer shifts from f=c/λ to f'=c'/λ, where λ is the wavelength and f is the frequency measured when the source is stationary.

Pentcho Valev
  #2  
Old September 26th 15, 05:06 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default IDIOCY CALLED SPECIAL RELATIVITY

Einstein's special relativity is so obviously idiotic that it is disproved, more or less explicitly, by any interpretation of the Doppler effect (moving observer):

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'/λ=(v+vO)/λ."

"Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed" = Goodbye Einstein!

http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/roger/PHY.../lecture18.pdf
Professor Roger Barlow: "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."

That is, for all types of wave, the speed of the waves relative to the fixed point (observer) is

(ct/λ)(λ/t) = c

The speed of the waves relative to the moving point (observer) is

(ct/λ + vt/λ)(λ/t) = c + v,

in violation of Einstein's relativity.

Pentcho Valev
  #3  
Old September 27th 15, 11:07 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default IDIOCY CALLED SPECIAL RELATIVITY

Einstein's 1905 fundamental idiocy (time SLOWS DOWN for the moving clock) taught by Neil deGrasse Tyson:

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/...ry?id=32191481
Neil deGrasse Tyson: "We have ways of moving into the future. That is to have time tick more slowly for you than others, who you return to later on. We've known that since 1905, Einstein's special theory of relativity, which gives the precise prescription for how TIME WOULD SLOW DOWN FOR YOU if you are set into motion."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2s1-RHuljo
Neil deGrasse Tyson: "One of the towering great achievements of the human mind in our understanding of the universe is Einstein's theories of relativity. (...) It makes only two assumptions: that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant no matter who is doing the measurement and no matter in what direction you are moving or how fast. You always get the same measurement for the speed of light. That's Assumption 1 which by the way the experiment has shown to be true. Assumption 2... (...) Given those two tenets, extraordinary spooky phenomena derive from them. For example: As you travel faster (...) time ticks MORE SLOWLY FOR YOU than it does for other people who are not."

No such phenomenon derives from the two tenets (assumptions). The phenomenon that does derive is:

As you travel faster, time ticks FASTER FOR YOU than it does for stationaries (you see your clock running FASTER than stationary clocks).

Neil deGrasse Tyson is silly but David Morin is not and accordingly he is well aware what exactly derives from the two tenets (assumptions):

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..."

Even Einstein abandoned his 1905 fundamental idiocy in the end and in 1918, after having discovered that his new (general) theory can serve as perfect camouflage, found it safe to teach the correct conclusion from his 1905 postulates (time SPEEDS UP for the moving clock, as judged from the moving reference frame):

http://sciliterature.50webs.com/Dialog.htm
Albert Einstein: "During the partial processes 2 and 4 [the outward and return parts of the trip] the clock U1, going at a velocity v, runs indeed at a slower pace than the resting clock U2." [Note: In Einstein's paper U2 is actually the moving clock and U1 is the resting one, but since in this quotation things are judged from the moving reference frame, U1 is said to be "going at a velocity v" while U2 is called "resting".]

Pentcho Valev
  #4  
Old September 28th 15, 09:01 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default IDIOCY CALLED SPECIAL RELATIVITY

http://topquark.hubpages.com/hub/Twin-Paradox
"The Twin Paradox is a scenario that, at first glance, seems to make nonsense out of Einstein's theory of special relativity. The situation is that a man sets off in a rocket travelling at high speed away from Earth, whilst his twin brother stays on Earth. (...) What happens is that the twin on Earth, viewing himself as stationary and his brother as moving at high speed, sees his brother experiencing time dilation and thus ageing more slowly. At the same time, the twin in the spaceship considers himself to be the stationary twin, and therefore as he looks back towards Earth he sees his brother ageing more slowly than himself. Each sees the other as moving, and therefore as experiencing time dilation. But which brother is "correct" in the way he perceives the situation? Both are. Each sees the other as being younger than himself. How they were perceived by any onlooker would depend on which frame of reference the onlooker was in. It doesn't make sense to ask which brother is "really" older, because the answer depends on where you stand to ask the question! But what about when the brother in the spaceship returns to Earth? Surely the contradiction will be apparent then? Ah, but in order to return to Earth, the spaceship must slow down, stop moving, turn around and go back the other way. During those periods of deceleration and deceleration, it is not an inertial frame and therefore the normal rules of special relativity don't apply. When the twin in the spaceship turns around to make his journey home, the shift in his frame of reference causes his perception of his brother's age to change rapidly: he sees his brother getting suddenly older. This means that when the twins are finally reunited, the stay-at-home twin is the older of the two."

Even Einsteinians know that the turning-around deceleration and acceleration are immaterial so Einstein's special relativity is nonsense not only at first glance but also at second, third, fourth etc:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/p...ds-philosophy/
Tim Maudlin: "...so many physicists strongly discourage questions about the nature of reality. The reigning attitude in physics has been "shut up and calculate": solve the equations, and do not ask questions about what they mean. But putting computation ahead of conceptual clarity can lead to confusion. Take, for example, relativity's iconic "twin paradox." Identical twins separate from each other and later reunite. When they meet again, one twin is biologically older than the other. (Astronaut twins Scott and Mark Kelly are about to realize this experiment: when Scott returns from a year in orbit in 2016 he will be about 28 microseconds younger than Mark, who is staying on Earth.) No competent physicist would make an error in computing the magnitude of this effect. But even the great Richard Feynman did not always get the explanation right. In "The Feynman Lectures on Physics," he attributes the difference in ages to the acceleration one twin experiences: the twin who accelerates ends up younger. But it is easy to describe cases where the opposite is true, and even cases where neither twin accelerates but they end up different ages. The calculation can be right and the accompanying explanation wrong."

http://sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=84&t=26847
Don Lincoln: "A common explanation of this paradox is that the travelling twin experienced acceleration to slow down and reverse velocity. While it is clearly true that a single person must experience this acceleration, you can show that the acceleration is not crucial. What is crucial is that the travelling twin experienced time in two reference frames, while the homebody experienced time in one. We can demonstrate this by a modification of the problem. In the modification, there is still a homebody and a person travelling to a distant star. The modification is that there is a third person even farther away than the distant star. This person travels at the same speed as the original traveler, but in the opposite direction. The third person's trajectory is timed so that both of them pass the distant star at the same time. As the two travelers pass, the Earthbound person reads the clock of the outbound traveler. He then adds the time he experiences travelling from the distant star to Earth to the duration experienced by the outbound person. The sum of these times is the transit time. Note that no acceleration occurs in this problem...just three people experiencing relative inertial motion."

http://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/archiv...lReadMore.html
Don Lincoln: "Some readers, probably including some of my doctoral-holding colleagues at Fermilab, will claim that the difference between the two twins is that one of the two has experienced an acceleration. (After all, that's how he slowed down and reversed direction.) However, the relativistic equations don't include that acceleration phase; they include just the coasting time at high velocity."

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."

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
IDIOCY CALLED GENERAL RELATIVITY Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 7 September 28th 15 10:15 PM
THE INSANITY CALLED RELATIVITY Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 3 June 22nd 14 07:41 PM
GENERAL RELATIVITY WITHOUT SPECIAL RELATIVITY Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 12 January 1st 09 04:20 PM
The "Venus/Mercury Radar Reflection Conjunction Anomaly", is a firm motive to question Special relativity and a support for the idea of "Planetary lightspeed frame dragging" by a so called LASOF. ( Local Anti-Symmetrical Oscillati [email protected][_2_] Misc 8 November 9th 07 06:57 AM
FOREVER SPECIAL RELATIVITY Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 5 September 22nd 07 02:24 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:04 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.