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

VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT (HOW IS RELATIVITY POSSIBLE?)



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 21st 11, 10:04 AM posted to sci.astro,sci.math
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT (HOW IS RELATIVITY POSSIBLE?)

If an observer on top of a tower emits light, an observer on the
ground measures the speed of the light to be increased:

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/hsr1...notes12_02.pdf
Harvey Reall, University of Cambridge: "...light falls in the
gravitational field in exactly the same way as a massive test
particle."

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."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNWngpw2vr0
Brian Cox: "Light falls at the same rate in a gravitational field as
everything else."

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

The fact that "light falls in a gravitational field just as do
material objects" has an important implication. Let us consider two
initially stationary observers, A and B, at some distance apart in an
inertial system. A emits a flash of light towards B just as B starts
accelerating towards A so that, when B and the flash meet, B has a
speed v relative to the original inertial system. If "light falls in a
gravitational field just as do material objects", then B measures the
speed of the flash to be c'=c+v. In other words, the speed of light
(relative to the observer) varies with the speed of the 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.ucsd.edu/students/cou...cs2c/Waves.pdf
"Doppler Shift: Moving Observer: Shift in frequency only, wavelength
does not change"

http://www.expo-db.be/ExposPrecedent...%20Doppler.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 !"

http://www.radartutorial.eu/11.coherent/co06.fr.html
"L'effet Doppler est le décalage de fréquence d'une onde acoustique ou
électromagnétique entre la mesure à l'émission et la mesure à la
réception lorsque la distance entre l'émetteur et le récepteur varie
au cours du temps. (...) Pour comprendre ce phénomène, il s'agit de
penser à une onde à une fréquence donnée qui est émise vers un
observateur en mouvement, ou vis-versa. LA LONGUEUR D'ONDE DU SIGNAL
EST CONSTANTE mais si l'observateur se rapproche de la source, il se
déplace vers les fronts d'ondes successifs et perçoit donc plus
d'ondes par seconde que s'il était resté stationnaire, donc une
augmentation de la fréquence. De la même manière, s'il s'éloigne de la
source, les fronts d'onde l'atteindront avec un retard qui dépend de
sa vitesse d'éloignement, donc une diminution de la fréquence."

http://www.phys.uconn.edu/~gibson/No...6_3/Sec6_3.htm
Professor George N. Gibson, University of Connecticut: "However, if
either the source or the observer is moving, things change. This is
called the Doppler effect. (...) To understand the moving observer,
imagine you are in a motorboat on the ocean. If you are not moving,
the boat will bob up and down with a certain frequency determined by
the ocean waves coming in. However, imagine that you are moving into
the waves fairly quickly. You will find that you bob up and down more
rapidly, because you hit the crests of the waves sooner than if you
were not moving. So, the frequency of the waves appears to be higher
to you than if you were not moving. Notice, THE WAVES THEMSELVES HAVE
NOT CHANGED, only your experience of them. Nevertheless, you would say
that the frequency has increased. Now imagine that you are returning
to shore, and so you are traveling in the same direction as the waves.
In this case, the waves may still overtake you, but AT A MUCH SLOWER
RATE - you will bob up and down more slowly. In fact, if you travel
with exactly the same speed as the waves, you will not bob up and down
at all. The same thing is true for sound waves, or ANY OTHER
WAVES."

Pentcho Valev

  #2  
Old December 21st 11, 03:09 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.math
dlzc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,426
Default VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT (HOW IS RELATIVITY POSSIBLE?)

Dear Pentcho Valev:

On Dec 21, 2:04*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:

Variable speed of light fails MMX (and moving sources have been used).
Non-c entering, but c leaving... fails.
Less-than-c entering will not leave at greater-than-c... fails.

VSL in Cosmology, sure, no problem.

But your brain is switched off, so you cannot see a problem with what
you propose as a problem for "Relativity", when in fact it is your
own.

David A. Smith
  #3  
Old December 22nd 11, 08:59 AM posted to sci.astro,sci.math
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT (HOW IS RELATIVITY POSSIBLE?)

The fact that the speed of light (relative to the observer/receiver)
varies with the speed of the observer/receiver is indispensable for
deriving the gravitational redshift so Einsteinians are forced to use
it, implicitly of course. The boldest among them believe that the
camouflage ("protective belt" in Imre Lakatos' terminology) is so
perfect that an explicit hint would do no harm:

http://student.fizika.org/~jsisko/Kn...Morin/CH13.PDF
David Morin p. 3: "However, the light takes a finite time to reach the
receiver, and by then the receiver will be moving. We therefore cannot
ignore the motion of the rocket when dealing with the receiver. The
time it takes the light to reach the receiver is h/c, at which point
the receiver has a speed of v=g(h/c).(...) The receiver and this next
pulse then travel toward each other at relative speed c+v..."

http://bertie.ccsu.edu/naturesci/PhilSci/Lakatos.html
"Lakatos distinguished between two parts of a scientific theory: its
"hard core" which contains its basic assumptions (or axioms, when set
out formally and explicitly), and its "protective belt", a surrounding
defensive set of "ad hoc" (produced for the occasion) hypotheses.
(...) In Lakatos' model, we have to explicitly take into account the
"ad hoc hypotheses" which serve as the protective belt. The protective
belt serves to deflect "refuting" propositions from the core
assumptions..."

Pentcho Valev

  #4  
Old December 22nd 11, 12:45 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.math
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT (HOW IS RELATIVITY POSSIBLE?)

The motion of the observer clearly cannot alter the wavelength of the
light wave (and of any other wave). Accordingly, since the frequency
does vary with the speed of the observer, the formula:

(frequency) = (speed of the wave)/(wavelength)

tells us that the speed of ANY wave (relative to the observer) varies
with the speed of the observer.

Not so, say practitioners of doublethink in Einsteiniana. Forget the
wavelength, it does not exist per se, think of the "observer's
wavelength-measuring apparatus" which always measures the correct
wavelength so that believers can safely sing "Divine Einstein" and
"Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity":

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ang/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)."

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...239c921a61d6a0
Tom Roberts: "NOTHING that is intrinsic to the light wave "changes".
But then, wavelength is NOT an intrinsic property of a light wave.
What does change with the observer's velocity is the RELATIONSHIP
between the observer's wavelength-measuring apparatus and the light
wave, and this causes differently moving observers to MEASURE
different wavelengths for the same light wave."

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17
George Orwell: "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. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to
exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is
tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this
knowledge ; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead
of the truth. (...) 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."

Pentcho Valev

  #5  
Old December 24th 11, 12:02 AM posted to sci.astro,sci.math
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT (HOW IS RELATIVITY POSSIBLE?)

As the observer starts moving towards the light source, the frequency
he measures increases and if his motion does not alter the wavelength,
then the speed of the light wave (relative to him) increases, goodbye
Einstein etc. The problem is taboo in Einsteiniana but still there are
two exceptions:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ang/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)."

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...239c921a61d6a0
Tom Roberts: "NOTHING that is intrinsic to the light wave "changes".
But then, wavelength is NOT an intrinsic property of a light wave.
What does change with the observer's velocity is the RELATIONSHIP
between the observer's wavelength-measuring apparatus and the light
wave, and this causes differently moving observers to MEASURE
different wavelengths for the same light wave."

Let us assume that Tom Roberts' statement:

"What does change with the observer's velocity is the RELATIONSHIP
between the observer's wavelength-measuring apparatus and the light
wave"

is correct. Then we consider a stationary observer and a moving source
of light. As the light source starts moving towards the observer, the
frequency the observer measures increases. Does "the RELATIONSHIP
between the observer's wavelength-measuring apparatus and the light
wave" change again? If yes, what triggers this change?

Pentcho Valev

  #6  
Old December 24th 11, 08:30 AM posted to sci.astro,sci.math
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT (HOW IS RELATIVITY POSSIBLE?)

The scenario:

"Stationary light source; the motion of the observer cannot change the
wavelength"

is forbidden in Einsteiniana but the scenario:

"Stationary observer; the motion of the light source CAN change the
wavelength"

is not:

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."

Pentcho Valev wrote:

As the observer starts moving towards the light source, the frequency
he measures increases and if his motion does not alter the wavelength,
then the speed of the light wave (relative to him) increases, goodbye
Einstein etc. The problem is taboo in Einsteiniana but still there are
two exceptions:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ang/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)."

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...239c921a61d6a0
Tom Roberts: "NOTHING that is intrinsic to the light wave "changes".
But then, wavelength is NOT an intrinsic property of a light wave.
What does change with the observer's velocity is the RELATIONSHIP
between the observer's wavelength-measuring apparatus and the light
wave, and this causes differently moving observers to MEASURE
different wavelengths for the same light wave."

Let us assume that Tom Roberts' statement:

"What does change with the observer's velocity is the RELATIONSHIP
between the observer's wavelength-measuring apparatus and the light
wave"

is correct. Then we consider a stationary observer and a moving source
of light. As the light source starts moving towards the observer, the
frequency the observer measures increases. Does "the RELATIONSHIP
between the observer's wavelength-measuring apparatus and the light
wave" change again? If yes, what triggers this change?

Pentcho Valev

  #7  
Old December 24th 11, 01:50 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.math
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT (HOW IS RELATIVITY POSSIBLE?)

http://www.universetoday.com/2010/03...ther-big-test/
"In 1960, GR passed its first big test in a lab, here on Earth; the
Pound-Rebka experiment. And over the nine decades since its
publication, GR has passed test after test after test, always with
flying colors."

The Pound-Rebka experiment showed that the frequency varies with the
gravitational potential, phi, in accordance with the equation:

f' = f(1 + phi/c^2)

This means that, given the formula:

(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

either the speed of light varies with the gravitational potential:

c' = c(1 + phi/c^2) (an equation given by Newton's emission theory of
light)

or the wavelength varies with the gravitational potential:

L' = L/(1 + phi/c^2) (an equation which, apart from being suspiciously
ad hoc, is incompatible with the gravitational time dilation
introduced by Einstein in 1911)

Conclusion: The Pound-Rebka experiment UNEQUIVOCALLY confirmed
Newton's emission theory of light.

Pentcho Valev

  #8  
Old December 26th 11, 09:26 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.math
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT (HOW IS RELATIVITY POSSIBLE?)

It is SELF-EVIDENT that the motion of the observer CANNOT alter the
wavelength of sound waves:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Py5uM...eature=related
"Doppler Effect Asymmetry"

In a world different from Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world it would
be SELF-EVIDENT that the motion of the observer CANNOT alter the
wavelength of light waves as well. In Einsteiniana's schizophrenic
world it is SELF-EVIDENT that the motion of the observer DOES alter
something (it could be the wavelength or "the relationship between the
observer's wavelength-measuring apparatus and the light wave" or
whatever) so that the speed of light (relative to the observer) can
remain unchanged and Einsteiniana's bellicose zombies can fiercely
sing "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity" while
persecuting heretics.

Pentcho Valev

  #9  
Old December 26th 11, 11:29 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.math
Androcles[_67_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22
Default VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT (HOW IS RELATIVITY POSSIBLE?)


"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
...
| It is SELF-EVIDENT that the motion of the observer CANNOT alter the
| wavelength of sound waves:

It is SELF-EVIDENT that ALL motion is relative, including wind.
It is SELF-EVIDENT that your statement is false. If you claim the observer
moves then you MUST state what he moves relatively to.




  #10  
Old December 27th 11, 08:37 AM posted to sci.astro,sci.math
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT (HOW IS RELATIVITY POSSIBLE?)

On Dec 27 Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
On 12/26/11 Pentcho Valev wrote:

It is SELF-EVIDENT that the motion of the observer CANNOT alter the
wavelength of sound waves:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Py5uM...eature=related
"Doppler Effect Asymmetry"


It is not "self-evident", but yes, from experimental measurements we know that
the motion of an observer does not affect the measured wavelength of sound waves.

In a world different from Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world it would
be SELF-EVIDENT that the motion of the observer CANNOT alter the
wavelength of light waves as well.


What you think would be "self-evident" in a counter-factual world is irrelevant.
All that matters is the world we inhabit, and in that world, the wavelength of a
light wave is NOT an intrinsic aspect of the wave, but rather represents a
RELATIONSHIP between wave and measuring instrument. Differently moving observers
in different inertial frames can AND DO measure different values for the
wavelength of a given light wave.


Honest Roberts,

It is SELF-EVIDENT that, when two adjacent wavecrests approach the
observer but have not reached him yet, the distance between them
(called "wavelength") CANNOT vary with the speed of the observer. Then
the two wavecrests pass the observer so that he can, in principle,
measure the distance between them. Divine Albert's Divine Special
Relativity predicts that, for an object passing the observer with
speed v lower than c, the measuring procedure shows lengths of parts
of the object varying with v so that believers cannot help singing
"Divine Einstein", tearing their clothes and going into convulsions.

However Divine Albert's Divine Special Relativity says nothing,
absolutely nothing, about the variation of the distance between two
wavecrests passing the observer with speed c or c+v.

Honest Roberts, your modesty notwithstanding, I feel forced to call
the attention to the two most important discoveries in physics since
1905, two discoveries made by Tom Honest Roberts by virtue of which
Divine Albert's Divine Special Relativity became absolute and eternal:

1. The initially stationary observer starts moving towards the light
source with speed v. His wavelength-measuring instrument, whatever
this might mean, automatically starts showing a contracted wavelength
so that the speed of the light wave relative to the observer can
gloriously remain the same. The effect is called "Roberts wavelength
contraction" (not to be confused with "Lorentz length contraction").

2. The speed of light is a glorious constant but even if "light in
vacuum does not travel at the invariant speed of the Lorentz
transform", Divine Albert's Divine Special Relativity "would be
unaffected" and "today's foundations of modern physics would not be
threatened":

http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.ph...1ebdf49c012de2
Tom Roberts: "If it is ultimately discovered that the photon has a
nonzero mass (i.e. light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant
speed of the Lorentz transform), SR would be unaffected but both
Maxwell's equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their domains
of applicability would be reduced)."

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...d3ebf3b94d89ad
Tom Roberts: "As I said before, Special Relativity would not be
affected by a non-zero photon mass, as Einstein's second postulate is
not required in a modern derivation (using group theory one obtains
three related theories, two of which are solidly refuted
experimentally and the third is SR). So today's foundations of modern
physics would not be threatened."

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
VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT: FUNDAMENTAL THEOREMS Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 7 April 29th 10 02:51 PM
Speed of light is variable says Einstein Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 35 September 20th 07 03:23 AM
Speed of light is variable says Einstein Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 3 August 11th 07 09:39 AM
Speed of light is variable says Einstein Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 0 August 11th 07 09:22 AM
JOHN MICHELL, RELATIVITY CRIMINALS AND VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 11 August 7th 07 05:14 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:54 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.