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

KILLING RATIONALITY IN EINSTEIN'S WORLD



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 12th 14, 10:04 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default KILLING RATIONALITY IN EINSTEIN'S WORLD

A nice illustration of a century-long rationality-killing "debate":

http://www.einsteins-theory-of-relat...n-paradox.html
"The Twin Paradox was born in 1911, after Paul Langevin restated Einstein's time dilation of traveling clocks as an interesting variant: one of two twin brothers undertakes a long, very fast space flight and on his return to Earth, finds his brother quite a bit older than himself. The twin paradox came in when skeptics argued that the 'away twin' could just as well have viewed himself as stationary, with the Earth and his twin brother speeding away from him and return to him later. In such a case, the Earth and the 'home twin' must be the younger ones, because they were in the 'moving frame of reference'. When compared to the original postulate, this is obviously paradoxical. Relativists then say, "remember, the away twin had to suffer 'g-forces' to get up to speed, then again to turn around and head back and finally, again to land on Earth. So, the situation is not symmetrical". Skeptics reply, "so what, we can make the journey arbitrarily long, so that the "g-forces" parts become negligible". Further, they say, "we are told that acceleration does not affect the rate of good clocks. So, the twin paradox stays"."

In fact, Einstein was the author of both turning-around-g-forces-are-immaterial and turning-around-g-forces-are-essential explanations:

http://www.academia.edu/3771200/Eins...d_twin_paradox
Albert Einstein 1911: "The clock runs slower if it is in uniform motion, but if it undergoes a change of direction as a result of a jolt, then the theory of relativity does not tell us what happens. The sudden change of direction might produce a sudden change in the position of the hands of the clock. However, the longer the clock is moving rectilinearly and uniformly with a given speed in a forward motion, i.e., the larger the dimensions of the polygon, the smaller must be the effect of such a hypothetical sudden change."

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Dialog...f_rela tivity
Albert Einstein 1918: "During the partial processes 2 and 4 the clock U1, going at a velocity v, runs indeed at a slower pace than the resting clock U2. However, this is more than compensated by a faster pace of U1 during partial process 3. According to the general theory of relativity, a clock will go faster the higher the GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL of the location where it is located, and during partial process 3 U2 happens to be located at a higher GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL than U1. The calculation shows that this speeding ahead constitutes exactly twice as much as the lagging behind during the partial processes 2 and 4. This consideration completely clears up the paradox that you brought up."

Pentcho Valev
  #2  
Old August 12th 14, 02:57 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default KILLING RATIONALITY IN EINSTEIN'S WORLD

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic..._of_light.html
Updated 2014 by Don Koks. Original by Steve Carlip (1997) and Philip Gibbs 1996: "To state that the speed of light is independent of the velocity of the observer is very counterintuitive. Some people even refuse to accept this as a logically consistent possibility, but in 1905 Einstein was able to show that it is perfectly consistent if you are prepared to give up assumptions about the absolute nature of space and time."

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einstein...eird_logic.htm
Professor Joe Wolfe: "At this stage, many of my students say things like "The invariance of the speed of light among observers is impossible" or "I can't understand it". Well, it's not impossible. It's even more than possible, it is true. This is something that has been extensively measured, and many refinements to the Michelson and Morely experiment, and complementary experiments have confirmed this invariance to very great precision. As to understanding it, there isn't really much to understand. However surprising and weird it may be, it is the case. It's the law in our universe. The fact of the invariance of c doesn't take much understanding: what requires understanding are its consequences, and how it can be integrated into what we already know."

Initially students watch relevant animations and clearly see that both the frequency and the speed of light (relative to the observer) vary with the speed of the observer:

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://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SC0Q6-xt-Xs
"Doppler effect - when an observer moves away from a stationary source. ....the velocity of the wave relative to the observer is slower than that when it is still."

Then students become Bingos - they still believe that the frequency varies but are absolutely sure that the speed of light (relative to the observer) cannot and does not vary with the speed of the observer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gX5ajyPr96M
Bingo (Chris Landreth, 1998)

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."

Pentcho Valev
  #3  
Old August 12th 14, 10:55 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default KILLING RATIONALITY IN EINSTEIN'S WORLD

Brian Cox, perhaps the most famous educator in Einstein's schizophrenic world:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiSpNh_e-0o&NR=1

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."

The above text is so idiotic (99% of the Einsteinians teach essentially the same idiocy) that no rational criticism is possible. I can only refer to correct interpretations of light falling in a gravitational field:

http://courses.physics.illinois.edu/...ctures/l13.pdf
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object. ITS SPEED INCREASES AS IT IS FALLING. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as it falls to earth. Because of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass, WE SHOULD OBSERVE THE SAME EFFECT FOR LIGHT. So lets shine a light beam from the top of a very tall building. If we can measure the frequency shift as the light beam descends the building, we should be able to discern how gravity affects a falling light beam. This was done by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They shone a light from the top of the Jefferson tower at Harvard and measured the frequency shift. The frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the theoretical prediction. Consider a light beam that is travelling away from a gravitational field. Its frequency should shift to lower values.. This is known as the gravitational red shift of light."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ2SVPahBzg
Video: "The light is perceived to be falling in a gravitational field just like a mechanical object would."

http://www.einstein-online.info/spot...t_white_dwarfs
Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. (...) The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..."

Pentcho Valev
  #4  
Old August 13th 14, 06:51 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default KILLING RATIONALITY IN EINSTEIN'S WORLD

Einsteiniana's standard lie: The speed of light has been measured to be constant countless times, both before (Michelson-Morley experiment) and after Einstein devised his special relativity. Now a different song:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor...b_5672842.html
Victor Stenger: "One of the axioms of Einstein's special theory of relatively is that the speed of light in a vacuum is equal to an absolute constant c that is independent of the motion of the source or observer of the light.. The first common myth I wish to address is that c is a measurable quantity and that it is possible to disprove the special theory by measuring a different speed in different frames of reference. (...) You can go ahead and try to measure the speed of light in a vacuum if you like. If your measuring instruments are properly calibrated by an atomic clock, then you are going to get 299,792,458 meters per second every time. If you don't, then all this will prove is that your light beam did not travel at c, not that Einstein was wrong. Einstein could someday turn out to be wrong, because that's how science works. But that fact will not be discovered by measuring the speed of light."

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
HOW EINSTEINIANA DESTROYS HUMAN RATIONALITY Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 8 May 15th 10 11:20 AM
WHY EINSTEIN WORLD IS A ZOMBIE WORLD Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 4 September 25th 07 10:06 AM
Albert Einstein, the Rational World and the Zombie World brian a m stuckless Policy 0 October 25th 05 09:48 PM
Albert Einstein, the Rational World and the Zombie World brian a m stuckless Astronomy Misc 0 October 25th 05 09:48 PM
NASA: Their MAIN Business Is Killing People For Profit 911: Scalar Weapons Used in World Trade Tower Attacks Carl R. Osterwald Astronomy Misc 1 May 11th 04 01:37 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:28 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.