|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
ZILLIONS OF OBSERVATIONS OF WAVELENGTH IN EINSTEIN CRIMINAL CULT
Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
harry wrote: On May 4, 8:12 pm, Tom Roberts wrote: That would be true if wavelength were an intrinsic property of the light wave, but it isn't. shrug Wavelength is a _relationship_ between a given light wave and a specific inertial frame in which the distance between wave crests is measured. it cannot possibly be intrinsic to the wave. Obviously the word "intrinsic" is ambiguous in this context; No, it isn't. Intrinsic properties of an object are those properties that are inherent in the object, unrelated to anything else. In modern physics, intrinsic properties are invariant. Apparently you use "intrinsic" as a synonym for "invariant", No. But they are related. Indeed, it is *by definition* impossible to physically change the length of a wave by changing the speed of observation. There is no such thing as "length of a wave". THAT'S THE POINT. There is only "wavelength as measured in this frame". Any model in which wavelength is a property of the wave alone is refuted by zillions of observations. shrug Tom Roberts Bravo Roberts bravo Tom bravo Albert Einstein of our generation (Hawking is no longer etc.)! Your student Harry does not seem to understand your wisdom and I think you should kick him out of Einstein cult. Anyway, you say "zillions" but I know you mean Pound and Rebka 1960 experiment that proved that the frequency varies in accordance with f' = f(1 + V/c^2) /1/ where V is the gravitational potential. Bad people hostile to Einstein criminal cult remembered Einstein's 1911 equation c' = c(1 + V/c^2) /2/ and said that /1/ and /2/ are consistent, in accordance with the formula frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength) /3/ However Big Brother sees all and bad intentions were quickly noticed and counteracted. You Roberts Roberts, the Albert Einstein of our generation (Hawking is no longer etc.), you declared Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) WRONG (you did not say it should be replaced with the correct equation c'=c but what else could /2/ be replaced with Roberts Roberts?) and started worshipping, apart from Divine Albert, THE WAVELENGTH: if something varies in accordance with the varying frequency /1/, this something could only be the wavelength and by no means the speed of light as predicted by Einstein. Now Roberts Roberts your work should be completed: Einstein's 1911 wrong equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) is replaced with the correct equation c' = c /4/ In accordance with /1/, /3/ and /4/, the wavelength varies in the following way: L' = L/(1 + V/c^2) /5/ Do you agree Roberts Roberts? Or perhaps Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) is not so wrong after all? Pentcho Valev |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
ZILLIONS OF OBSERVATIONS OF WAVELENGTH IN EINSTEIN CRIMINAL CULT
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message ups.com... Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity: Did he really write that?? It doesn't show up in my news reader... harry wrote: On May 4, 8:12 pm, Tom Roberts wrote: That would be true if wavelength were an intrinsic property of the light wave, but it isn't. shrug Wavelength is a _relationship_ between a given light wave and a specific inertial frame in which the distance between wave crests is measured. it cannot possibly be intrinsic to the wave. Obviously the word "intrinsic" is ambiguous in this context; No, it isn't. Intrinsic properties of an object are those properties that are inherent in the object, unrelated to anything else. In modern physics, intrinsic properties are invariant. That's wrong. One should not attempt to force one's personal philosophy on other physicists. Apparently you use "intrinsic" as a synonym for "invariant", No. But they are related. Indeed, it is *by definition* impossible to physically change the length of a wave by changing the speed of observation. There is no such thing as "length of a wave". THAT'S THE POINT. There is only "wavelength as measured in this frame". Any model in which wavelength is a property of the wave alone is refuted by zillions of observations. shrug Tom(?) snipped the argument, but that's not unusual. Did he really write that?? A long time ago he prepared a few write-ups about "LET" (with "LET" he means Lorentz's interpretation), in which he stated correctly: "One can pick _any_ inertial frame whatsoever, call it the "ether frame" and apply LET using that "ether frame" and obtain the same computations and predictions as in SR" In any medium model (e.g. acoustics), wavelength depends on the frequency in the medium and the properties of the medium; if one consistenly uses a wave model, the wavelength cannot depend on the frame of measurement (of course, *apparent* wavelength *does* depend on it). Tom Roberts Bravo Roberts bravo Tom bravo Albert Einstein of our generation (Hawking is no longer etc.)! Your student Harry does not seem to I'm certainly not "his student" - and happily so! SNIP Pound and Rebka as I already attempted to explain that to you in the past - no use of going round in circles. Harald |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
ZILLIONS OF OBSERVATIONS OF WAVELENGTH IN EINSTEIN CRIMINAL CULT
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message ups.com... Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity: harry wrote: On May 4, 8:12 pm, Tom Roberts wrote: That would be true if wavelength were an intrinsic property of the light wave, but it isn't. shrug Wavelength is a _relationship_ between a given light wave and a specific inertial frame in which the distance between wave crests is measured. it cannot possibly be intrinsic to the wave. Obviously the word "intrinsic" is ambiguous in this context; No, it isn't. Intrinsic properties of an object are those properties that are inherent in the object, unrelated to anything else. In modern physics, intrinsic properties are invariant. Apparently you use "intrinsic" as a synonym for "invariant", No. But they are related. Indeed, it is *by definition* impossible to physically change the length of a wave by changing the speed of observation. There is no such thing as "length of a wave". THAT'S THE POINT. There is only "wavelength as measured in this frame". Any model in which wavelength is a property of the wave alone is refuted by zillions of observations. shrug Tom Roberts Bravo Roberts bravo Tom bravo Albert Einstein of our generation (Hawking is no longer etc.)! Your student Harry does not seem to understand your wisdom and I think you should kick him out of Einstein cult. Anyway, you say "zillions" but I know you mean Pound and Rebka 1960 experiment that proved that the frequency varies in accordance with f' = f(1 + V/c^2) /1/ where V is the gravitational potential. Bad people hostile to Einstein criminal cult remembered Einstein's 1911 equation c' = c(1 + V/c^2) /2/ and said that /1/ and /2/ are consistent, in accordance with the formula frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength) /3/ However Big Brother sees all and bad intentions were quickly noticed and counteracted. You Roberts Roberts, the Albert Einstein of our generation (Hawking is no longer etc.), you declared Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) WRONG (you did not say it should be replaced with the correct equation c'=c but what else could /2/ be replaced with Roberts Roberts?) and started worshipping, apart from Divine Albert, THE WAVELENGTH: if something varies in accordance with the varying frequency /1/, this something could only be the wavelength and by no means the speed of light as predicted by Einstein. Now Roberts Roberts your work should be completed: Einstein's 1911 wrong equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) is replaced with the correct equation c' = c /4/ In accordance with /1/, /3/ and /4/, the wavelength varies in the following way: L' = L/(1 + V/c^2) /5/ Do you agree Roberts Roberts? Or perhaps Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) is not so wrong after all? Pentcho Valev In one of the papers about the Pound and Repka experiment it is said explicitly, that some change has been unquestionably measured, but it is not possible to decide if it caused by change of "light" speed or its frequency. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
ZILLIONS OF OBSERVATIONS OF WAVELENGTH IN EINSTEIN CRIMINAL CULT
On May 6, 11:27 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
[...] Go away. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
ZILLIONS OF OBSERVATIONS OF WAVELENGTH IN EINSTEIN CRIMINAL CULT
"kanuk" wrote in message newsZ11i.173163$DE1.63283@pd7urf2no... : : "Pentcho Valev" wrote in message : ups.com... : Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity: : harry wrote: : On May 4, 8:12 pm, Tom Roberts wrote: : That would be true if wavelength were an intrinsic property of the : light : wave, but it isn't. shrug : Wavelength is a _relationship_ between a given light wave and a : specific : inertial frame in which the distance between wave crests is measured. : it : cannot possibly be intrinsic to the wave. : : Obviously the word "intrinsic" is ambiguous in this context; : : No, it isn't. Intrinsic properties of an object are those properties : that are inherent in the object, unrelated to anything else. In modern : physics, intrinsic properties are invariant. : : : Apparently you use "intrinsic" as a synonym for "invariant", : : No. But they are related. : : : Indeed, it is *by definition* impossible to physically : change the length of a wave by changing the speed of observation. : : There is no such thing as "length of a wave". THAT'S THE POINT. There is : only "wavelength as measured in this frame". Any model in which : wavelength is a property of the wave alone is refuted by zillions of : observations. shrug : : : Tom Roberts : : Bravo Roberts bravo Tom bravo Albert Einstein of our generation : (Hawking is no longer etc.)! Your student Harry does not seem to : understand your wisdom and I think you should kick him out of Einstein : cult. Anyway, you say "zillions" but I know you mean Pound and Rebka : 1960 experiment that proved that the frequency varies in accordance : with : : f' = f(1 + V/c^2) /1/ : : where V is the gravitational potential. Bad people hostile to Einstein : criminal cult remembered Einstein's 1911 equation : : c' = c(1 + V/c^2) /2/ : : and said that /1/ and /2/ are consistent, in accordance with the : formula : : frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength) /3/ : : However Big Brother sees all and bad intentions were quickly noticed : and counteracted. You Roberts Roberts, the Albert Einstein of our : generation (Hawking is no longer etc.), you declared Einstein's 1911 : equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) WRONG (you did not say it should be replaced : with the correct equation c'=c but what else could /2/ be replaced : with Roberts Roberts?) and started worshipping, apart from Divine : Albert, THE WAVELENGTH: if something varies in accordance with the : varying frequency /1/, this something could only be the wavelength and : by no means the speed of light as predicted by Einstein. Now Roberts : Roberts your work should be completed: : : Einstein's 1911 wrong equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) is replaced with the : correct equation : : c' = c /4/ : : In accordance with /1/, /3/ and /4/, the wavelength varies in the : following way: : : L' = L/(1 + V/c^2) /5/ : : Do you agree Roberts Roberts? Or perhaps Einstein's 1911 equation : c'=c(1+V/c^2) is not so wrong after all? : : Pentcho Valev : : In one of the papers about the Pound and Repka experiment it is said : explicitly, that some change has been unquestionably measured, but it is not : possible to decide if it caused by change of "light" speed or its frequency. : Very simply, frequency = 1/time. Since both redshift and blueshift are observable then for light speed to remain constant we have a change in time, both dilation and contraction, for the same GPS receiver midway between two satellites, one on the Eastern horizon and one the Western, as the Earth turns. Don't believe all you read in the papers, it *is* possible to decide. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
GENEROSITY IN THE RELATIVITY CULT | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 17 | July 25th 07 11:19 PM |
The Enchanted Loom-Mind in the Universe-the WT cult | AråchñÕe¤ | Misc | 0 | January 9th 06 11:53 PM |
The most dangerous cult in the United States? | Ed T | Amateur Astronomy | 1 | December 29th 05 11:36 PM |
Superluminal Observations: Was Einstein Wrong? | Double-A | Misc | 2 | February 26th 05 03:27 PM |
Big Bang Baloney....or scientific cult? | Yoda | Misc | 102 | August 2nd 04 02:33 AM |