THE RELATIVITY FRAUD: SIMPLE AND MONUMENTAL

"harry" wrote in message
...
"Jeckyl" wrote in message
...
"harry" wrote in message
...

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
ps.com...

As this is coming back at infinium, I'll do one last effort to stop it
(with very little chance of success, I know!)...

There is an elementary equation in physics:

frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

1. So far it's OK. But what do you claim is cause, and what is effect?
What cause and what effect .. they three things are interrelated
That's an all too dumb position to take, but Pentcho took that exactly -
and of course he messed up.

My question remains .. what cause .. what effect?

According to the equation, if the frequency varies, this could be due
to a variation of either the speed of light or the wavelength.
2. *Not* according to the standard wave theory that that equation
relates to. Can you figure out why? (see question 1).
Eh?
* Note: Here's a hint. Suppose that you are driving a car. There is an
elementary equation in physics:
speed = distance / time.
- Would you REALLY claim that if the speed of your car varies, this
could be due to a variation of either the distance or the time?
Yes
If the distance the car travels in the given time changes, then that is a
change in speed
If the time the car takes to travel a given distance change, then that is
a change in speed
Do you not understand that?
Sure. That was not my question to Pentcho - do you not understand that?

It ceratinly seemed to be

On May 9, 11:39 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:

[...]

Are you ever going to go back to spamming chemistry groups about your
thermodynamics misconceptions, or are you stuck on relativity?

When are you going to shift to whining about quantum mechanics?

"Eric Gisse" wrote in message oups.com...
On May 9, 11:39 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:

[...]

Are you ever going to go back to spamming chemistry groups about your
thermodynamics misconceptions, or are you stuck on relativity?

Yes.
He gets more replies here so he will stay here.
He is lonely.


When are you going to shift to whining about quantum mechanics?

He won't.
Not enough replies.

Dirk Vdm

On May 10, 8:20 am, "Androcles"
wrote:
wrote in oglegroups.com...
On May 10, 4:50 am, "Androcles"
wrote:
wrote in oglegroups.com...
On May 10, 12:39 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
There is an elementary equation in physics:

frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

According to the equation, if the frequency varies, this could be due
to a variation of either the speed of light or the wavelength. The
frequency does vary and clever relativists have always known that the
frequency variation is due to a variation of the speed of light.
However they have also known that this variability of the speed of
light is fatal not only for the theory of relativity but also for the
whole modern physics. On the other hand, the world (not only clever
relativists) has always known that Einstein's relativity is based on
the assumption that the speed of light is constant, not variable. How
then could the collapse of modern physics be avoided?

Through destruction of rationality in science. If you manage to
destroy it, scientists would accept anything: that the wavelength
rather than the speed of light varies, that the speed of light does
indeed vary but not locally, that the problem of the variability of
the speed of light disappeared when Einstein created his general
relativity, that the speed of light is variable in general relativity
but constant in special relativity, that the frequency variation is
due to gravitational time dilation, not to the variation of the speed
of light, etc. etc. There seems to be no absurd explanation that
relativity hypnotists have not contrived and taught. The destruction
of rationality in science is irreversible.

Pentcho Valev

It is conceivable that light does reduce in velocity according to
General Relativity.

Conceivable? Are you having twins or talking about wild imagination?

In reaction to this, the photon's path curves in
toward the gravitating body, in order to maintain the path of least
resistance.

Resistance? What resistance?

This is similar in principle to Snell's law,

This has nothing to do with Snell.

Try a little conceiving, it is not difficult.
Stand between two candles, then walk toward one as you walk away from the other.
How fast is the light coming toward you in your wonderfully inertial frame of reference,
or even in your wonderful aether, one blue shifted and the other red shifted?

But look!
IN PICTURES:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...AC/doppler.gif

The frequency the gold antenna sees is 2 and the wavelength is 1/2.
2* 1/2 = 1, the speed is one.
The frequency the purple antenna sees is 0 and the wavelength is infinite.
0*1/0 = 1, the speed is one.
Self-fulfilling idiocy!

There is an elementary equation in physics:
Velocity = frequency at source * perceived wavelength
because the perceived wavelength is the distance between crests, and
that is tied to the frequency.
Frequency is invariant.
It is INCONCEIVABLE for Einstein to have ever had a ****ing clue.
Only-one-speed-of-light cranks should be shot on sight.

The same type of resistance to motion that any kind of energy has. The
denser it is, the more it resists motion through it by other energy.

You must be pretty dense if you hallucinate vacuum has any density.
What have you got, a wooden block on your shoulders, ****wit?

It's a good thing we're so far away from the Sun that my wooden block
hasn't lit on fire yet. You see, the further you get away from a
radiating body, the less dense its electromagnetic field (and
associated oscillations per unit space) becomes. I think the drop-off
rate is 1/r^2, but you might want to double-check that. Be nice
Androcles.

wrote in message oups.com...
On May 10, 8:20 am, "Androcles"
wrote:
wrote in oglegroups.com...
On May 10, 4:50 am, "Androcles"
wrote:
wrote in oglegroups.com...
On May 10, 12:39 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
There is an elementary equation in physics:

frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

According to the equation, if the frequency varies, this could be due
to a variation of either the speed of light or the wavelength. The
frequency does vary and clever relativists have always known that the
frequency variation is due to a variation of the speed of light.
However they have also known that this variability of the speed of
light is fatal not only for the theory of relativity but also for the
whole modern physics. On the other hand, the world (not only clever
relativists) has always known that Einstein's relativity is based on
the assumption that the speed of light is constant, not variable. How
then could the collapse of modern physics be avoided?

Through destruction of rationality in science. If you manage to
destroy it, scientists would accept anything: that the wavelength
rather than the speed of light varies, that the speed of light does
indeed vary but not locally, that the problem of the variability of
the speed of light disappeared when Einstein created his general
relativity, that the speed of light is variable in general relativity
but constant in special relativity, that the frequency variation is
due to gravitational time dilation, not to the variation of the speed
of light, etc. etc. There seems to be no absurd explanation that
relativity hypnotists have not contrived and taught. The destruction
of rationality in science is irreversible.

Pentcho Valev

It is conceivable that light does reduce in velocity according to
General Relativity.

Conceivable? Are you having twins or talking about wild imagination?

In reaction to this, the photon's path curves in
toward the gravitating body, in order to maintain the path of least
resistance.

Resistance? What resistance?

This is similar in principle to Snell's law,

This has nothing to do with Snell.

Try a little conceiving, it is not difficult.
Stand between two candles, then walk toward one as you walk away from the other.
How fast is the light coming toward you in your wonderfully inertial frame of reference,
or even in your wonderful aether, one blue shifted and the other red shifted?

But look!
IN PICTURES:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...AC/doppler.gif

The frequency the gold antenna sees is 2 and the wavelength is 1/2.
2* 1/2 = 1, the speed is one.
The frequency the purple antenna sees is 0 and the wavelength is infinite.
0*1/0 = 1, the speed is one.
Self-fulfilling idiocy!

There is an elementary equation in physics:
Velocity = frequency at source * perceived wavelength
because the perceived wavelength is the distance between crests, and
that is tied to the frequency.
Frequency is invariant.
It is INCONCEIVABLE for Einstein to have ever had a ****ing clue.
Only-one-speed-of-light cranks should be shot on sight.

The same type of resistance to motion that any kind of energy has. The
denser it is, the more it resists motion through it by other energy.

You must be pretty dense if you hallucinate vacuum has any density.
What have you got, a wooden block on your shoulders, ****wit?

It's a good thing we're so far away from the Sun that my wooden block
hasn't lit on fire yet.
You see, the further you get away from a
radiating body, the less dense its electromagnetic field (and
associated oscillations per unit space) becomes. I think the drop-off
rate is 1/r^2, but you might want to double-check that.

Try a magnifying glass.
http://wildwoodsurvival.com/survival...ier/index.html

If a gigantic parabolic dish were placed behind the Sun with Sun at focus
(much like a car headlight), and Earth moved into the path of the beam,
your inverse square theory would got to hell in a hand basket before you
could lift the basket.

Be nice Androcles.

I'm nice to small children and animals. Neanderthal blockheads I'm
less tolerant of.

Density is defined as mass/volume, but I understand what are trying to say.
What you will not succeed in doing is stopping one beam crossing another
or deflecting it, no matter how "dense" the beam's intensity.
Roads have wavelength, cars have frequency.
Roads don't move, cars do.
For EM radiation, speed is proportional to wavelength, frequency is invariant.

"Jeckyl" wrote in message
...
"harry" wrote in message
...
"Jeckyl" wrote in message
...
"harry" wrote in message
...

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
ps.com...

As this is coming back at infinium, I'll do one last effort to stop it
(with very little chance of success, I know!)...

There is an elementary equation in physics:

frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

1. So far it's OK. But what do you claim is cause, and what is effect?
What cause and what effect .. they three things are interrelated
That's an all too dumb position to take, but Pentcho took that exactly -
and of course he messed up.

My question remains .. what cause .. what effect?

I hope that you don't suffer from his problem! But since he didn't reply,
see below the sillyness of which I suspect that he fell victim.

According to the equation, if the frequency varies, this could be due
to a variation of either the speed of light or the wavelength.
2. *Not* according to the standard wave theory that that equation
relates to. Can you figure out why? (see question 1).
Eh?
* Note: Here's a hint. Suppose that you are driving a car. There is an
elementary equation in physics:
speed = distance / time.
- Would you REALLY claim that if the speed of your car varies, this
could be due to a variation of either the distance or the time?
Yes
If the distance the car travels in the given time changes, then that is
a change in speed
If the time the car takes to travel a given distance change, then that
is a change in speed
Do you not understand that?
Sure. That was not my question to Pentcho - do you not understand that?

It ceratinly seemed to be

Following what appears his line of reasoning: if he doubles the travel
distance, this can cause his car to go twice as fast - because that is what
the equation tells him! ;-)

Cheers,
Harald

"harry" wrote in message
...
Yes
If the distance the car travels in the given time changes, then that is
a change in speed
If the time the car takes to travel a given distance change, then that
is a change in speed
Do you not understand that?
Sure. That was not my question to Pentcho - do you not understand that?

It ceratinly seemed to be

Following what appears his line of reasoning: if he doubles the travel
distance, this can cause his car to go twice as fast - because that is
what the equation tells him! ;-)

That's correct .. if the time to travel it remains the same.