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

SPECIAL RELATIVITY IS INHERENTLY CONTRADICTORY



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 29th 13, 08:28 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default SPECIAL RELATIVITY IS INHERENTLY CONTRADICTORY

Einsteinians universally teach that a light source moving towards the observer sends a shorter wavelength than a stationary light source:

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."

Let us assume that the moving source does send a shorter wavelength than the stationary source. Clearly the shortening of the wavelength occurs at the very beginning, as two consecutive wavecrests leave the source - then the shortened wavelength starts its journey towards the observer. In other words, the wavelength that travels between source and observer is shortened.

If the observer starts moving towards the stationary source, the situation is entirely different. This time the wavelength that travels between source and observer is not shortened - rather, it is the original wavelength (produced by the stationary source) which could only look shorter upon interaction with the observer.

The two different pictures - the travelling wavelength is shorter when the source moves towards the observer and longer when the observer moves towards the source - contradict the principle of relativity.

We have reductio ad absurdum: either the principle of relativity is incorrect or our assumption that the moving source sends a shorter wavelength is false. The principle of relativity is correct so the conclusion is:

Conclusion: The moving source sends the same wavelength as the stationary source.

But if the moving source sends the same wavelength as the stationary source, why does the observer measure a greater frequency when the light comes from the moving source? The formula:

(frequency measured by the observer) = (speed of light relative to the observer)/(wavelength)

gives the only possible answer: the observer measures a greater frequency when the light comes from the moving source because, relative to him, the speed of the light coming from the moving source is greater, in violation of special relativity.

Pentcho Valev
  #2  
Old August 30th 13, 05:10 AM posted to sci.astro
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,175
Default SPECIAL RELATIVITY IS INHERENTLY CONTRADICTORY

On Thursday, August 29, 2013 12:28:13 PM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Einsteinians universally teach that a light source moving towards the observer sends a shorter wavelength than a stationary light source:



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."



Let us assume that the moving source does send a shorter wavelength than the stationary source. Clearly the shortening of the wavelength occurs at the very beginning, as two consecutive wavecrests leave the source - then the shortened wavelength starts its journey towards the observer. In other words, the wavelength that travels between source and observer is shortened.



If the observer starts moving towards the stationary source, the situation is entirely different. This time the wavelength that travels between source and observer is not shortened - rather, it is the original wavelength (produced by the stationary source) which could only look shorter upon interaction with the observer.



The two different pictures - the travelling wavelength is shorter when the source moves towards the observer and longer when the observer moves towards the source - contradict the principle of relativity.



We have reductio ad absurdum: either the principle of relativity is incorrect or our assumption that the moving source sends a shorter wavelength is false. The principle of relativity is correct so the conclusion is:



Conclusion: The moving source sends the same wavelength as the stationary source.



But if the moving source sends the same wavelength as the stationary source, why does the observer measure a greater frequency when the light comes from the moving source? The formula:



(frequency measured by the observer) = (speed of light relative to the observer)/(wavelength)



gives the only possible answer: the observer measures a greater frequency when the light comes from the moving source because, relative to him, the speed of the light coming from the moving source is greater, in violation of special relativity.



Pentcho Valev



When a bowling ball is dropped into any body of water, and a wave of molecular displacement energy gets created, does any part of that bowling ball and its initial displacement wave continue to follow along within any given path of its expanding wave(s)?

If an individual (singular) photon wave doesn't actually move, would explain a lot of what we interpret about our expanding universe.
  #3  
Old August 30th 13, 07:05 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default SPECIAL RELATIVITY IS INHERENTLY CONTRADICTORY

Albert Einstein Istitute: When the light source (sender) starts moving towards the observer (receiver, detector), the distance between two subsequent wavecrests sent by the source gets shorter. The shortened wavelength then travels to the observer who measures, as a result, a higher frequency. But when the observer (receiver) starts moving towards the source, the situation is entirely different (according to the Albert Einstein's Institute): the wavelength that travels between source and receiver is not shortened and the higher frequency measured by the receiver is due to the motion of the receiver:

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. (...) Due to the sender's motion, the distance between two successive pulses in this case is not d, but d-D. But when the distance between successive pulses is smaller, the time interval that passes between their arrival at the detector is also smaller or, put differently, the frequency with which the pulses arrive at the detector is higher! (...) 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."

Clearly the principle of relativity is violated - the travelling wavelength cannot be shorter when the source moves towards the observer and longer when the observer moves towards the source . The following conclusion restores the validity of the principle of relativity:

Conclusion: The moving source sends the same wavelength as the stationary source.

But if the moving source sends the same wavelength as the stationary source, why does the observer measure a greater frequency when the light comes from the moving source? The formula:

(frequency measured by the observer) = (speed of light relative to the observer)/(wavelength)

gives the only possible answer: the observer measures a greater frequency when the light comes from the moving source because, relative to him, the speed of the light coming from the moving source is greater, in violation of special relativity.

Pentcho Valev
  #4  
Old August 31st 13, 03:24 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default SPECIAL RELATIVITY IS INHERENTLY CONTRADICTORY

Einsteinians universally teach that a light source moving towards the observer sends a shorter wavelength than a stationary light source. In other words, the wavelength travelling between the moving source and the stationary observer is shorter than the wavelength travelling between the stationary source and the stationary observer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5tKC3nEx2I
"For an observer, if a star was moving towards them, the light waves produced by the star in front of the star would be compressed together, giving a high frequency light waves."

Clever Einsteinians know that this is fatal for special relativity so they would give no explicit support to such teaching. But they would not support the antithesis either, which makes the problem difficult to discuss in Divine Albert's world. Here is the antinomy:

Thesis: The wavelength travelling between the moving source and the stationary observer is SHORTER than the wavelength travelling between the stationary source and the stationary observer.

Antithesis: The wavelength travelling between the moving source and the stationary observer is THE SAME as the wavelength travelling between the stationary source and the stationary observer.

Both Thesis and Antithesis are fatal for special relativity so clever Einsteinians would not say explicitly "Thesis is true" or "Antithesis is true":

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwe...hapter2.9.html
"Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."

Pentcho Valev
  #5  
Old September 1st 13, 05:33 PM posted to sci.astro
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,175
Default SPECIAL RELATIVITY IS INHERENTLY CONTRADICTORY

On Thursday, August 29, 2013 11:05:53 PM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Albert Einstein Istitute: When the light source (sender) starts moving towards the observer (receiver, detector), the distance between two subsequent wavecrests sent by the source gets shorter. The shortened wavelength then travels to the observer who measures, as a result, a higher frequency. But when the observer (receiver) starts moving towards the source, the situation is entirely different (according to the Albert Einstein's Institute): the wavelength that travels between source and receiver is not shortened and the higher frequency measured by the receiver is due to the motion of the receiver:



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. (...) Due to the sender's motion, the distance between two successive pulses in this case is not d, but d-D. But when the distance between successive pulses is smaller, the time interval that passes between their arrival at the detector is also smaller or, put differently, the frequency with which the pulses arrive at the detector is higher! (...) 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."



Clearly the principle of relativity is violated - the travelling wavelength cannot be shorter when the source moves towards the observer and longer when the observer moves towards the source . The following conclusion restores the validity of the principle of relativity:



Conclusion: The moving source sends the same wavelength as the stationary source.



But if the moving source sends the same wavelength as the stationary source, why does the observer measure a greater frequency when the light comes from the moving source? The formula:



(frequency measured by the observer) = (speed of light relative to the observer)/(wavelength)



gives the only possible answer: the observer measures a greater frequency when the light comes from the moving source because, relative to him, the speed of the light coming from the moving source is greater, in violation of special relativity.



Pentcho Valev


Even being right is of no value, especially when so much is invested in the mostly Semitic reinforced version of everything.

We're taking about thousands of highly paid individuals that would be put at risk of losing everything if SR were invalidated, or even interpreted differently for all the right reasons.

 




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
CAN SPECIAL RELATIVITY BE SAVED ? Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 3 August 27th 13 10:27 PM
NO HOPE FOR SPECIAL RELATIVITY Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 6 June 18th 13 03:51 PM
NO HOPE FOR SPECIAL RELATIVITY Koobee Wublee Astronomy Misc 13 June 15th 13 12:49 AM
THE SPECIAL RELATIVITY FUDGE Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 February 21st 13 04:59 PM
GENERAL RELATIVITY WITHOUT SPECIAL RELATIVITY Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 12 January 1st 09 04:20 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:26 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.