|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |