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

DOUBLETHINK IN DIVINE ALBERT'S WORLD



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 11th 13, 10:40 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default DOUBLETHINK IN DIVINE ALBERT'S WORLD

John Norton knows that, according to Maxwell's theory, the speed of light relative to the observer varies with the speed of the observer:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/Chasing.pdf
John Norton: "That [Maxwell's] theory allows light to slow and be frozen in the frame of reference of a sufficiently rapidly moving observer."

John Norton teaches that the speed of light relative to the observer does not vary with the speed of the observer. He explains that this invariance is the essence of Einstein's 1905 light postulate and that Einstein took the idea from... Maxwell's theory:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...les/index.html
John Norton: "Why Einstein should believe the light postulate is a little harder to see. We would expect that a light signal would slow down relative to us if we chase after it. The light postulate says no. No matter how fast an inertial observer is traveling in pursuit of the light signal, that observer will always find the light signal to be traveling at the same speed, c. The principal reason for Einstein's acceptance of the light postulate was his lengthy study of electrodynamics, the theory of electric and magnetic fields. The theory was the most advanced physics of the time. Some 50 years before, Maxwell had shown that light was merely a ripple propagating in an electromagnetic field. Maxwell's theory predicted that the speed of the ripple was a quite definite number: c."

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwe...hapter2.9.html
"Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and hence of guilt. Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably necessary. (...) It need hardly be said that the subtlest practitioners of doublethink are those who invented doublethink and know that it is a vast system of mental cheating. In our society, those who have the best knowledge of what is happening are also those who are furthest from seeing the world as it is. In general, the greater the understanding, the greater the delusion ; the more intelligent, the less sane.."

http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4010/4...22552b04_z.jpg

Pentcho Valev
  #2  
Old August 12th 13, 07:52 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default DOUBLETHINK IN DIVINE ALBERT'S WORLD

We have doublethink in Big Brother's world but sometimes triplethink in Divine Albert's world (mass schizophrenia in the latter is more severe). So, in a gravitational field, apart from being twice as variable as the speed of ordinary falling objects, the speed of light is also constant, and in addition just as variable as the speed of ordinary falling objects, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Here is Steve Carlip boldly teaching that, in a gravitational field, the speed of light is two times more variable than the speed of ordinary falling objects:

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."

A joke? No. Steve Carlip is more than serious - this is exactly what Divine Albert's Divine Theory predicts:

http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm
"Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German. (...) ...you will find in section 3 of that paper Einstein's derivation of the variable speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is: c'=c0(1+phi/c^2) where phi is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light co is measured. (...) You can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from the full theory of general relativity in the weak field approximation. (...) Namely the 1955 approximation shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in 1911."

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm
"Specifically, Einstein wrote in 1911 that the speed of light at a place with the gravitational potential phi would be c(1+phi/c^2), where c is the nominal speed of light in the absence of gravity. In geometrical units we define c=1, so Einstein's 1911 formula can be written simply as c'=1+phi. However, this formula for the speed of light (not to mention this whole approach to gravity) turned out to be incorrect, as Einstein realized during the years leading up to 1915 and the completion of the general theory. (...) ...we have c_r =1+2phi, which corresponds to Einstein's 1911 equation, except that we have a factor of 2 instead of 1 on the potential term."

However, in Divine Albert's world, the speed of light is also constant in a gravitational field:

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."

http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_sp_gr.html
Dr. Eric Christian: "Is light affected by gravity? If so, how can the speed of light be constant? Wouldn't the light coming off of the Sun be slower than the light we make here? If not, why doesn't light escape a black hole? Yes, light is affected by gravity, but not in its speed. General Relativity (our best guess as to how the Universe works) gives two effects of gravity on light. It can bend light (which includes effects such as gravitational lensing), and it can change the energy of light. But it changes the energy by shifting the frequency of the light (gravitational redshift) not by changing light speed. Gravity bends light by warping space so that what the light beam sees as "straight" is not straight to an outside observer. The speed of light is still constant."

In Divine Albert's world, the speed of light is also just as variable as the speed of ordinary falling objects (light falls with the same acceleration as cannonballs):

http://sethi.lamar.edu/bahrim-cristi...t-lens_PPT.pdf
Dr. Cristian Bahrim: "If we accept the principle of equivalence, we must also accept that light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as material bodies."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixhczNygcWo
"The light is perceived to be falling in a gravitational field just like a mechanical object would. (...) The change in speed of light with change in height is dc/dh=g/c."

http://www.wfu.edu/~brehme/space.htm
Robert W. Brehme: "Light falls in a gravitational field just as do material objects."

http://membres.multimania.fr/juvastr...s/einstein.pdf
"Le principe d'équivalence, un des fondements de base de la relativité générale prédit que dans un champ gravitationnel, la lumière tombe comme tout corps matériel selon l'acceleration de la pesanteur."

Finally, in Divine Albert's world, the speed of light is sometimes both variable and constant in a gravitational field, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic..._of_light.html
Steve Carlip: "Einstein went on to discover a more general theory of relativity which explained gravity in terms of curved spacetime, and he talked about the speed of light changing in this new theory. In the 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: "...according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [...] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position." Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector quantity: speed with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not clear that he meant the speed will change, but the reference to special relativity suggests that he did mean so. This interpretation is perfectly valid and makes good physical sense, but a more modern interpretation is that the speed of light is constant in general relativity."

Pentcho Valev
  #3  
Old August 12th 13, 11:47 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default DOUBLETHINK IN DIVINE ALBERT'S WORLD

Classical doublethink in Divine Albert's world:

The acceleration suffered by the travelling twin is responsible for her youthfulness. The turning-around period is essential:

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."

The acceleration suffered by the travelling twin is not responsible for her youthfulness. The turning-around period can be ignored:

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."

The acceleration suffered by the travelling twin is responsible for her youthfulness. The turning-around period is essential. On the other hand a discussion of acceleration is not required to quantitatively understand the paradox, that is, the turning-around period can be ignored, insofar as there are scenarios in which there is no acceleration at all:

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, as Problem 11.2 shows.."

Why do Einsteinians practice doublethink so diligently? Because that's the way ahah ahah they like it, ahah ahah:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEyfr10lgNw

Pentcho Valev
  #4  
Old August 13th 13, 09:37 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default DOUBLETHINK IN DIVINE ALBERT'S WORLD

John Norton knows that, when the observer starts moving towards the wave source, the speed of the wavecrests relative to the observer increases, and the increased speed is manifested as an increased frequency measured by the observer. However John Norton is perhaps the subtlest practitioner of doublethink in Einsteiniana so he both teaches and believes that the motion of the observer somehow changes the wavelength of the incoming light waves. That is, the wavelength and the frequency change so that the speed of the wavecrests relative to the observer can remain unchanged, 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)."

Ordinary Einsteinians don't practice doublethink - they only have to obey Ignatius of Loyola's principle:

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."

In the following video ordinary Einsteinians can clearly see that, when the observer starts moving towards the light source, the wavelength remains unchanged but the speed of the wavecrests relative to the observer increases, in violation of special relativity. Yet the tutor forces ordinary Einsteinians to see that "the apparent distance between waves becomes shorter" and they do see the nonexistent shortening, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOOlCrjljvU
Introductory Astronomy: Doppler Effect Basics: 7:19: "As the observer moves towards the source, the apparent distance between waves becomes shorter. We can see that..."

Similarly, in the following video, ordinary Einsteinans can clearly see that, when the observer starts moving away from the light source, the frequency and the velocity of the wavecrests (relative to him) decrease, in violation of special relativity. Yet Dr Ricardo Eusebi explains that the velocity does not change, and accordingly ordinary Einsteinians see no change in the velocity of the wavecrests relative to the moving observer, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity:

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."

Some Einsteinians get so used to the idea that the motion of the observer gloriously changes the wavelength of light waves that a generalization becomes popular in Divine Albert's world: Since the motion of the observer gloriously changes the wavelength of light waves, then the motion of the observer gloriously changes the wavelength of any waves, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity:

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."

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
HALF-ABSURDITIES IN DIVINE ALBERT'S WORLD Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 June 30th 13 06:04 PM
Bingo the Einsteiniano Tests Divine Albert's Divine Theory Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 5 April 30th 13 07:56 AM
EDUCATION IN DIVINE ALBERT'S WORLD Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 3 March 7th 13 08:20 AM
TEST FOR SANITY IN DIVINE ALBERT'S WORLD Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 November 5th 12 07:28 AM
HOW ROBERT POUND CONFIRMED DIVINE ALBERT'S DIVINE THEORY Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 6 May 2nd 10 05:54 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:11 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.