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

Metastases of Einstein's Constant-Speed-of-Light Nonsense



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 18th 19, 05:01 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default Metastases of Einstein's Constant-Speed-of-Light Nonsense

Obvious idiocy in Einstein's relativity: The motion of the observer changes the wavelength of the incoming light:

Kip Thorne (4:56): "If you move toward the source [of light], you see the wavelength shortened, but you don't see the speed changed." https://youtu.be/mvdlN4H4T54?t=296

"The wavelength shortened" is an idiotic fudge factor that preserves the nonsensical constancy of the speed of light and saves Einstein's relativity. Here is more detail:

The observer (receiver) starts moving towards the light source with speed v:

http://www.einstein-online.info/imag...ector_blue.gif

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE

If you are an Einsteinian and your entire life depends on the nonsensical constancy of the speed of light, you should believe (or pretend to believe, like Kip Thorne) that the motion of the observer changes the distance between incoming pulses - from d to d'=dc/(c+v). Equivalently, you should believe that the motion of the observer changes the wavelength of the incoming light - from λ to λ'=λc/(c+v).

Needless to say, the motion of the observer CANNOT change the wavelength of the incoming light:

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

"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." http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/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." http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp...9_doppler.html

The fudge factor - the motion of the observer changes the wavelength of the incoming light - is too idiotic, even by the standards of Einstein cult, so Einsteinians don't discuss it explicitly. Here are exceptions - Einsteinians who explicitly discuss the idiocy (these Einsteinians are particularly deranged and teach that the motion of the observer changes the wavelength even in the case of sound waves):

http://bretagnemontagne.files.wordpr...2011/02/23.jpg

Professor Martin White, UC Berkeley: "...the sound waves have a fixed wavelength (distance between two crests or two troughs) only if you're not moving relative to the source of the sound. If you are moving away from the source (or equivalently it is receding from you) then each crest will take a little longer to reach you, and so you'll perceive a longer wavelength. Similarly if you're approaching the source, then you'll be meeting each crest a little earlier, and so you'll perceive a shorter wavelength. [...] The same principle applies for light as well as for sound. In detail the amount of shift depends a little differently on the speed, since we have to do the calculation in the context of special relativity. But in general it's just the same: if you're approaching a light source you see shorter wavelengths (a blue-shift), while if you're moving away you see longer wavelengths (a red-shift)." http://w.astro.berkeley.edu/~mwhite/...plershift.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.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ved/index.html

Pentcho Valev
  #2  
Old May 18th 19, 07:10 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default Metastases of Einstein's Constant-Speed-of-Light Nonsense

Einstein wrestled with his conscience "over a lengthy period of time, to the point of despair" before introducing the obviously nonsensical constancy of the speed of light:

John Stachel: "But this seems to be nonsense. How can it happen that the speed of light relative to an observer cannot be increased or decreased if that observer moves towards or away from a light beam? Einstein states that he wrestled with this problem over a lengthy period of time, to the point of despair." http://www.aip.org/history/exhibits/...relativity.htm

Space and time had to merge into an idiotic centaur-like monster called spacetime - to fit the nonsensical constancy:

"Special relativity is based on the observation that the speed of light is always the same, independently of who measures it, or how fast the source of the light is moving with respect to the observer. Einstein demonstrated that as an immediate consequence, space and time can no longer be independent, but should rather be considered a new joint entity called "spacetime." http://community.bowdoin.edu/news/20...rs-of-gravity/

So physics died -became insane. Nowadays Einsteinians gloriously jump, within a minute of their experienced time, sixty million years ahead in the future, and trap unlimitedly long objects, in a compressed state, inside unlimitedly short containers:

Thibault Damour: "The paradigm of the special relativistic upheaval of the usual concept of time is the twin paradox. Let us emphasize that this striking example of time dilation proves that time travel (towards the future) is possible. As a gedanken experiment (if we neglect practicalities such as the technology needed for reaching velocities comparable to the velocity of light, the cost of the fuel and the capacity of the traveller to sustain high accelerations), it shows that a sentient being can jump, "within a minute" (of his experienced time) arbitrarily far in the future, say sixty million years ahead, and see, and be part of, what (will) happen then on Earth. This is a clear way of realizing that the future "already exists" (as we can experience it "in a minute")." http://www.bourbaphy.fr/damourtemps.pdf

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/De9fBJwWkAEMaXZ.jpg

"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in the barn. [...] So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. [...] If it does not explode under the strain and it is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be TRAPPED IN A COMPRESSED STATE inside the barn." http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...barn_pole.html

Post-sanity science: High priests in Einstein cult repudiate Einstein's idiotic spacetime, declare that it doesn't exist, but worship the underlying premise, Einstein's nonsensical constant-speed-of-light axiom, and LIGO's ripples in spacetime:

Nima Arkani-Hamed (06:09): "Almost all of us believe that spacetime doesn't really exist, spacetime is doomed and has to be replaced..." https://youtu.be/U47kyV4TMnE?t=369

"And by making the clock's tick relative - what happens simultaneously for one observer might seem sequential to another - Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end, says Smolin." http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013...reality-review

"Was Einstein wrong? At least in his understanding of time, Smolin argues, the great theorist of relativity was dead wrong. What is worse, by firmly enshrining his error in scientific orthodoxy, Einstein trapped his successors in insoluble dilemmas..." https://www.amazon.com/Time-Reborn-C.../dp/B00AEGQPFE

Nobel Laureate David Gross observed, "Everyone in string theory is convinced...that spacetime is doomed. But we don't know what it's replaced by." https://www.edge.org/response-detail/26563

What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime... [...] The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..." https://www.edge.org/response-detail/25477

"Rethinking Einstein: The end of space-time. [...] Horava, who is at the University of California, Berkeley, wants to rip this fabric apart and set time and space free from one another in order to come up with a unified theory that reconciles the disparate worlds of quantum mechanics and gravity - one the most pressing challenges to modern physics." https://www.newscientist.com/article...of-space-time/

"We've known for decades that space-time is doomed," says Arkani-Hamed. "We know it is not there in the next version of physics." http://discovermagazine.com/2014/jan...ure-of-physics

So spacetime "is not there in the next version of physics" but LIGO's ripples in spacetime are there, like the grin of the Cheshire cat:

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon....1J-7PIffiL.jpg

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
Physics without Einstein's Constant-Speed-of-Light Nonsense Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 1 April 28th 19 05:30 PM
Explaining Einstein's Constant-Speed-of-Light Nonsense Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 April 19th 19 09:01 AM
Why Einstein's Constant-Speed-of-Light Postulate Is Nonsense Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 March 2nd 19 08:01 AM
Why Einstein's Constant Speed of Light Is Nonsense Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 1 February 18th 19 08:52 PM
Einstein's Constant Speed of Light: Consistent Nonsense Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 September 3rd 17 08:44 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:51 AM.


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.