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

Nonsensical Concepts in Einstein's Physics

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old May 13th 21, 05:32 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
Posts: 8,078
Default Nonsensical Concepts in Einstein's Physics

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

Einstein's constant speed of light is OBVIOUS NONSENSE. Frequency and speed of light pulses vary proportionally for the moving observer https://youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE, in accordance with the formula

(frequency) = (speed of pulses)/(distance between pulses)

Variable wavelength of light https://youtube.com/watch?v=xsVxC_NR64M is another nonsense in Einstein's physics. It contradicts the principle of relativity. If the wavelength (distance between light pulses) varied, the emitter would measure it inside his spaceship and so would know his speed without looking outside.

See more he https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev
Old May 14th 21, 12:49 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
Posts: 8,078
Default Nonsensical Concepts in Einstein's Physics

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

Einstein's physics. CONSTANT SPEED OF LIGHT: Any frequency shift is caused by an inversely proportional wavelength shift. Obvious nonsense.

Future, Einstein-free physics. CONSTANT WAVELENGTH: Any frequency shift is caused by a proportional speed-of-light shift. Illustrations:


"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

"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://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php

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." https://courses.physics.illinois.edu...re13/L13r.html

Albert Einstein Institute: "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..." http://www.einstein-online.info/spot...te_dwarfs.html

"We conclude, therefore, that A BEAM OF LIGHT WILL ACCELERATE IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD AS DO OBJECTS WITH REST MASS. For example, near the surface of Earth light will fall with acceleration 9.8 m/s^2." http://web.pdx.edu/~pmoeck/books/Tipler_Llewellyn.pdf

More he https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

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
The Nonsensical Foundation of Modern Physics Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 September 19th 20 08:01 AM
Physics Predicated on a Nonsensical Axiom Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 1 September 14th 20 09:18 AM
Einstein's Nonsensical Axiom That Killed Physics Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 1 August 16th 19 08:04 PM
Einstein's 1905 Nonsensical Axiom Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 April 23rd 19 07:19 AM
Einstein's Nonsensical Axiom That Killed Physics Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 April 18th 19 09:15 AM

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:18 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.