HOW EINSTEINIANS CAN LEAVE THEIR SCHIZOPHRENIC WORLD

If the observer suddenly starts moving towards the light source, the
frequency of light increases (Doppler effect). This has a SIMPLE
IMPLICATION: the wavecrests are now bumping more frequently into the
observer, that is, THE SPEED OF LIGHT RELATIVE TO THE OBSERVER HAS
INCREASED. "But this is fatal for Divine Albert's Divine Theory" - say
to themselves Einsteiniana's teachers and replace the SIMPLE
IMPLICATION with an IDIOTIC ONE:

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)."

If Einsteinians want to leave their schizophrenic world, they should
return to the SIMPLE IMPLICATION by realizing that the wavelength is
determined by the light source and cannot depend on the movements of
the observer.

By the way, John Baez, Einsteiniana's most famous teacher, has already
left Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world:

http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_5.html
John Baez: "On the one hand we have the Standard Model, which tries to
explain all the forces except gravity, and takes quantum mechanics
into account. On the other hand we have General Relativity, which
tries to explain gravity, and does not take quantum mechanics into
account. Both theories seem to be more or less on the right track but
until we somehow fit them together, or completely discard one or both,
our picture of the world will be deeply schizophrenic.....I realized I
didn't have enough confidence in either theory to engage in these
heated debates. I also realized that there were other questions to
work on: questions where I could actually tell when I was on the right
track, questions where researchers cooperate more and fight less. So,
I eventually decided to quit working on quantum gravity."

Pentcho Valev

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
...
If the observer suddenly starts moving towards the light source, the
frequency of light increases (Doppler effect). This has a SIMPLE
IMPLICATION: the wavecrests are now bumping more frequently into the
observer, that is, THE SPEED OF LIGHT RELATIVE TO THE OBSERVER HAS
INCREASED.

No, the measured wavelength decreases by exactly the same amount.

You really need to read some simple introduction to relativity targeted at
people with only limited knowledge of physics and maths. Einstein himself
wrote such a book, as have many other people.

There is no point in you trying to understand the finer points of relativity
when you don't even know the basics.

On Jul 18, 7:03 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
If the observer suddenly starts moving towards the light source, the
frequency of light increases (Doppler effect). This has a SIMPLE
IMPLICATION: the wavecrests are now bumping more frequently into the
observer, that is, THE SPEED OF LIGHT RELATIVE TO THE OBSERVER HAS
INCREASED. "But this is fatal for Divine Albert's Divine Theory" - say
to themselves Einsteiniana's teachers and replace the SIMPLE
IMPLICATION with an IDIOTIC ONE:

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)."

If Einsteinians want to leave their schizophrenic world, they should
return to the SIMPLE IMPLICATION by realizing that the wavelength is
determined by the light source and cannot depend on the movements of
the observer.

By the way, John Baez, Einsteiniana's most famous teacher, has already
left Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world:

http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_5.html
John Baez: "On the one hand we have the Standard Model, which tries to
explain all the forces except gravity, and takes quantum mechanics
into account. On the other hand we have General Relativity, which
tries to explain gravity, and does not take quantum mechanics into
account. Both theories seem to be more or less on the right track but
until we somehow fit them together, or completely discard one or both,
our picture of the world will be deeply schizophrenic.....I realized I
didn't have enough confidence in either theory to engage in these
heated debates. I also realized that there were other questions to
work on: questions where I could actually tell when I was on the right
track, questions where researchers cooperate more and fight less. So,
I eventually decided to quit working on quantum gravity."

Einsteinians who want to leave Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world
should also consider this:

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
"So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is not constant in
a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, APPLIES AS
WELL TO ACCELERATING (NON-INERTIAL) FRAMES OF REFERENCE]. If this were
not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational field
of stars....Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the calculation
in: 'On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light,'
Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911. which predated the full formal
development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is
widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99
of the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity.' You will find in
section 3 of that paper, Einstein's derivation of the (variable) speed
of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is,
c' = c0 ( 1 + V / c^2 )
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
speed of light c0 is measured."

and ask the question: If the speed of light varies with the
gravitational potential in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2),
how does it vary with the relative speed v of the light source (at the
moment of emission) and an observer belonging to an ACCELERATING (NON-
INERTIAL) FRAME OF REFERENCE (at the moment of reception)? They could
solve the problem in the following way:

A light source on top of a tower of height h emits light with
frequency f, speed c (relative to the source) and wavelength L. A
receiver on the ground receives light with frequency f', speed
c' (relative to the receiver) and wavelength L'. Einstein's 1911
solution gives:

f'=f(1+gh/c^2); c'=c(1+gh/c^2); L'=L

A rocket of length h accelerates with acceleration g. A light source
at the front end emits light with frequency f, speed c (relative to
the source) and wavelength L. A receiver at the back end receives
light with frequency f', speed c' (relative to the receiver) and
wavelength L'. At the moment of reception, the receiver has speed v
relative to the light source at the moment of emission. Einstein's
equivalence principle gives:

f'=f(1+v/c); c'=c+v; L'=L

Clearly, Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world should be abandoned.

Pentcho Valev

If the observer suddenly starts moving towards the light source, the
frequency of light increases (Doppler effect). This has a SIMPLE
IMPLICATION: the wavecrests are now bumping more frequently into the
observer, that is, THE SPEED OF LIGHT RELATIVE TO THE OBSERVER HAS
INCREASED. "But this is fatal for Divine Albert's Divine Theory" - say
to themselves Einsteiniana's teachers and replace the SIMPLE
IMPLICATION with an IDIOTIC ONE:

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)."

If Einsteinians want to leave their schizophrenic world, they should
return to the SIMPLE IMPLICATION by realizing that the wavelength is
determined by the light source and cannot depend on the movements of
the observer.

By the way, John Baez, Einsteiniana's most famous teacher, has already
left Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world:

http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_5.html
John Baez: "On the one hand we have the Standard Model, which tries to
explain all the forces except gravity, and takes quantum mechanics
into account. On the other hand we have General Relativity, which
tries to explain gravity, and does not take quantum mechanics into
account. Both theories seem to be more or less on the right track but
until we somehow fit them together, or completely discard one or both,
our picture of the world will be deeply schizophrenic.....I realized I
didn't have enough confidence in either theory to engage in these
heated debates. I also realized that there were other questions to
work on: questions where I could actually tell when I was on the right
track, questions where researchers cooperate more and fight less. So,
I eventually decided to quit working on quantum gravity."

Einsteinians who want to leave Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world
should also consider this:

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
"So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is not constant in
a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, APPLIES AS
WELL TO ACCELERATING (NON-INERTIAL) FRAMES OF REFERENCE]. If this were
not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational field
of stars....Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the calculation
in: 'On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light,'
Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911. which predated the full formal
development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is
widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99
of the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity.' You will find in
section 3 of that paper, Einstein's derivation of the (variable) speed
of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is,
c' = c0 ( 1 + V / c^2 )
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
speed of light c0 is measured."

and ask the question: If the speed of light varies with the
gravitational potential in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2),
how does it vary with the relative speed v of the light source (at the
moment of emission) and an observer belonging to an ACCELERATING (NON-
INERTIAL) FRAME OF REFERENCE (at the moment of reception)? They could
solve the problem in the following way:

A light source on top of a tower of height h emits light with
frequency f, speed c (relative to the source) and wavelength L. A
receiver on the ground receives light with frequency f', speed
c' (relative to the receiver) and wavelength L'. Einstein's 1911
solution gives:

f'=f(1+gh/c^2); c'=c(1+gh/c^2); L'=L

A rocket of length h accelerates with acceleration g. A light source
at the front end emits light with frequency f, speed c (relative to
the source) and wavelength L. A receiver at the back end receives
light with frequency f', speed c' (relative to the receiver) and
wavelength L'. At the moment of reception, the receiver has speed v
relative to the light source at the moment of emission. Einstein's
equivalence principle gives:

f'=f(1+v/c); c'=c+v; L'=L

Clearly, Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world should be abandoned.

Perhaps Einsteinians CANNOT leave their schizophrenic world but they
could at least stop destroying children's rationality in this way:

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/mmedia/specrel/lc.cfm
A high school physics tutorial: "One of the peculiar aspects of
Einstein's theory of special relativity is that the length of objects
moving at relativistic speeds undergoes a contraction along the
dimension of motion. An observer at rest (relative to the moving
object) would observe the moving object to be shorter in length. That
is to say, that an object at rest might be measured to be 200 feet
long; yet the same object when moving at relativistic speeds relative
to the observer/measurer would have a measured length which is less
than 200 ft. This phenomenon is not due to actual errors in
measurement or faulty observations. The object is actually contracted
in length as seen from the stationary reference frame. The amount of
contraction of the object is dependent upon the object's speed
relative to the observer."

The object cannot be "actually contracted" because this would allow
Einsteinians to trap it inside a short container and the implications
are more than absurd. See even more absurdity he

http://www.labnews.co.uk/laboratory_...lar-of-physics

Pentcho Valev

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
...
On Jul 18, 7:03 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
If the observer suddenly starts moving towards the light source, the
frequency of light increases (Doppler effect). This has a SIMPLE
IMPLICATION: the wavecrests are now bumping more frequently into the
observer, that is, THE SPEED OF LIGHT RELATIVE TO THE OBSERVER HAS
INCREASED. "But this is fatal for Divine Albert's Divine Theory" - say
to themselves Einsteiniana's teachers and replace the SIMPLE
IMPLICATION with an IDIOTIC ONE:

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)."

If Einsteinians want to leave their schizophrenic world, they should
return to the SIMPLE IMPLICATION by realizing that the wavelength is
determined by the light source and cannot depend on the movements of
the observer.

By the way, John Baez, Einsteiniana's most famous teacher, has already
left Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world:

http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_5.html
John Baez: "On the one hand we have the Standard Model, which tries to
explain all the forces except gravity, and takes quantum mechanics
into account. On the other hand we have General Relativity, which
tries to explain gravity, and does not take quantum mechanics into
account. Both theories seem to be more or less on the right track but
until we somehow fit them together, or completely discard one or both,
our picture of the world will be deeply schizophrenic.....I realized I
didn't have enough confidence in either theory to engage in these
heated debates. I also realized that there were other questions to
work on: questions where I could actually tell when I was on the right
track, questions where researchers cooperate more and fight less. So,
I eventually decided to quit working on quantum gravity."

Einsteinians who want to leave Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world
should also consider this:

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
"So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is not constant in
a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, APPLIES AS
WELL TO ACCELERATING (NON-INERTIAL) FRAMES OF REFERENCE].

Yes. The speed of light is only a constant in an inertial reference frame,
which in GR is free-fall.


If this were
not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational field
of stars....Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the calculation
in: 'On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light,'
Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911. which predated the full formal
development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is
widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99
of the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity.' You will find in
section 3 of that paper, Einstein's derivation of the (variable) speed
of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is,
c' = c0 ( 1 + V / c^2 )
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
speed of light c0 is measured."


Yes, but now of course you are talking about general relativity.


and ask the question: If the speed of light varies with the
gravitational potential in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2),
how does it vary with the relative speed v of the light source (at the

It doesn't. None of the equations you have posted say anything about the
velocity of the emitter of the light,.

moment of emission) and an observer belonging to an ACCELERATING (NON-
INERTIAL) FRAME OF REFERENCE (at the moment of reception)? They could
solve the problem in the following way:


Or, they might not.


A light source on top of a tower of height h emits light with
frequency f, speed c (relative to the source) and wavelength L. A
receiver on the ground receives light with frequency f', speed
c' (relative to the receiver) and wavelength L'. Einstein's 1911
solution gives:

f'=f(1+gh/c^2); c'=c(1+gh/c^2); L'=L

A rocket of length h accelerates with acceleration g. A light source
at the front end emits light with frequency f, speed c (relative to
the source) and wavelength L. A receiver at the back end receives
light with frequency f', speed c' (relative to the receiver) and
wavelength L'. At the moment of reception, the receiver has speed v
relative to the light source at the moment of emission. Einstein's
equivalence principle gives:

f'=f(1+v/c); c'=c+v; L'=L

You have conflated two different concepts. You have applied a formula from
SR - which explicitly only applies within inertial frames of reference - and
tried to use it on an accelerating rocket.

In any event, the news that the speed of light in a vacuum depends upon the
acceleration of the observer is hardly surprising, as the quotes you have
provided show it is the basis of the whole idea of GR, and the non-constancy
of light speed is hardly that amazing, nothing else has constant speed in
all frames of reference.

Of course, this gravitational effect (or at least very closely related ones,
such as gravitational redshift and lensing) is verified numerically every
day in observatories world wide.

HTH


Peter Webb






Clearly, Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world should be abandoned.

Pentcho Valev