A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

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

Absurd Implicit Assumptions in Einstein's Relativity



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 11th 16, 05:27 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,497
Default Absurd Implicit Assumptions in Einstein's Relativity

In order for the speed of light to remain constant, the moving observer miraculously changes the wavelength of the incoming waves:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ved/index.html
John Norton: "Every sound or light wave has a particular frequency and wavelength. In sound, they determine the pitch; in light they determine the color. 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)."

http://www.lp2i-poitiers.fr/doc/aps/...oppleffet.html
"The observer moves closer to the source. The wave received has a shorter wavelength (higher frequency) than that emitted by the source. The observer moves away from the source. The wave received has a longer wavelength (lower frequency) than that emitted by the source."

All sane scientists know that the motion of the observer cannot change the wavelength of the incoming waves. That is, in accordance with the formula

(frequency) = (speed of the waves relative to the observer)/(wavelength)

the measured shift in frequency can only be caused by a shift in the speed of the waves relative to the observer, which is fatal for Einstein's relativity of course:

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."

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://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...ml/node41.html
"Thus, the moving observer sees a wave possessing the same wavelength (...) but a different frequency (...) to that seen by the stationary observer."

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://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."

Pentcho Valev
Ads
  #2  
Old January 11th 16, 09:53 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,497
Default Absurd Implicit Assumptions in Einstein's Relativity

Scientists readily admit that the motion of the observer cannot change the wavelength of SOUND waves (and therefore the speed of the waves does vary with the speed of the observer):

http://faculty.washington.edu/wilkes...erference..pdf
"Sound waves have speed c, and f and λ are related by c=λf. For an observer moving relative to medium with speed u, apparent propagation speed c' will be different: c'=c±u. Wavelength cannot change - it's a constant length in the medium, and same length in moving coordinate system (motion does not change lengths). Observed frequency has to change, to match apparent speed and fixed wavelength: f'=c'/λ."

Most scientists are afraid to openly declare that the motion of the observer cannot change the wavelength of LIGHT waves as well but some are not:

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:

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

http://www.einstein-online.info/imag...ector_blue.gif (moving receiver)

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."

Since "four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses", the speed of the pulses relative to the receiver is greater than their speed relative to the source, in violation of Einstein's relativity..

Pentcho Valev
  #3  
Old January 12th 16, 05:39 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,497
Default Absurd Implicit Assumptions in Einstein's Relativity

Today's Einsteinians ("later writers") fraudulently teach that the Michelson-Morley experiment supports Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate but John Stachel and John Norton prefer to tell the truth:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf
"In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues that reveal Einstein's serious consideration of an emission theory of light; and he gave us the crucial insight that Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity. Even today, this point needs emphasis. The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."

So it seems that the Michelson-Morley experiment is compatible with both the assumption that the speed of light does depend on the speed of the light source (c'=c+v) and the assumption that the speed of light does not depend on the speed of the light source (c'=c). This sounds at least strange and obviously needs further explanations but Einsteinians would never give them (and the gullible world couldn't care less about this double-edgedness of the otherwise unambiguous experiment).

Actually the Michelson-Morley experiment is not double-edged but this becomes clear when implicit assumptions are made explicit. The experiment is compatible with c'=c+v if there is no relativistic length contraction (unlimitedly long objects cannot be trapped inside unlimitedly short containers) and compatible with c'=c if length contraction is real (unlimitedly long objects CAN be trapped inside unlimitedly short containers):

http://www.einsteins-theory-of-relat...arage_irf1.png

There is nothing more absurd than the relativistic length contraction - see what happens at 7:12 and 9:53 in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xrqj88zQZJg
"Einstein's Relativistic Train in a Tunnel Paradox: 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
EINSTEIN'S GENERAL RELATIVITY IS OBVIOUSLY ABSURD Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 1 November 18th 15 01:13 PM
EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY OBVIOUSLY ABSURD Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 0 November 15th 14 02:08 PM
EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY : ABSURD OR WORSE ? Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 0 October 11th 14 07:58 AM
ABSURD TIME DILATION IN EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 September 15th 14 11:46 PM
UNKNOWN ABSURD CONSEQUENCES OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 4 June 23rd 14 11:27 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.