If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

 THE ONLY THING YOU NEED TO KNOW IN PHYSICS
 Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

## THE ONLY THING YOU NEED TO KNOW IN PHYSICS

#1
July 13th 13, 05:41 PM posted to sci.astro
 Pentcho Valev external usenet poster Posts: 7,851
THE ONLY THING YOU NEED TO KNOW IN PHYSICS

Joao Magueijo: "The constancy of the speed of light in modern physics is not just one more thing to remember. It is THE thing to remember. You don't need to know anything else in physics really."

Saboteurs ignore the sacrosanct constancy and suggest that the speed of light relative to the observer varies with the speed of the observer:

http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/roger/PHY.../lecture18.pdf
Roger Barlow, Professor of Particle Physics: "The Doppler effect - changes in frequencies when sources or observers are in motion - is familiar to anyone who has stood at the roadside and watched (and listened) to the cars go by. It applies to all types of wave, not just sound. (...) Moving Observer. Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer is moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/lambda waves pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/lambda. So f'=(c+v)/lambda."

http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler
Albert Einstein Institute: "The frequency of a wave-like signal - such as sound or light - depends on the movement of the sender and of the receiver. This is known as the Doppler effect. (...) In the above paragraphs, we have only considered moving sources. In fact, a closer look at cases where it is the receiver that is in motion will show that this kind of motion leads to a very similar kind of Doppler effect. Here is an animation of the receiver moving towards the source: (...) 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: As the receiver moves towards each pulse, the time until pulse and receiver meet up is shortened. In this particular animation, which has the receiver moving towards the source at one third the speed of the pulses themselves, four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses."

http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php
"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://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...ml/node41.html
University of Texas: "Thus, the moving observer sees a wave possessing the same wavelength (...) but a different frequency (...) to that seen by the stationary observer. This phenomenon is known as the Doppler effect."

http://www.donbosco-tournai.be/expo-...fetDoppler.pdf
"La variation de la fréquence observée lorsqu'il y a mouvement relatif entre la source et l'observateur est appelée effet Doppler. (...) 6. Source immobile - Observateur en mouvement: La distance entre les crêtes, la longueur d'onde lambda ne change pas. Mais la vitesse des crêtes par rapport à l'observateur change !"

"L'effet Doppler est le décalage de fréquence d'une onde acoustique ou électromagnétique entre la mesure à l'émission et la mesure à la réception lorsque la distance entre l'émetteur et le récepteur varie au cours du temps. (...) Pour comprendre ce phénomène, il s'agit de penser à une onde à une fréquence donnée qui est émise vers un observateur en mouvement, ou vis-versa. LA LONGUEUR D'ONDE DU SIGNAL EST CONSTANTE mais si l'observateur se rapproche de la source, il se déplace vers les fronts d'ondes successifs et perçoit donc plus d'ondes par seconde que s'il était resté stationnaire, donc une augmentation de la fréquence.. De la même manière, s'il s'éloigne de la source, les fronts d'onde l'atteindront avec un retard qui dépend de sa vitesse d'éloignement, donc une diminution de la fréquence. Dans le cas sonore, cela se traduit par un son plus aigu lors d'un rapprochement de la source et un son plus grave en s'éloignant de celle-ci. Dans le domaine de la lumière visible, on parle de décalage vers le bleu pour un rapprochement et vers le rouge dans le cas d'éloignement en se référant au spectre lumineux. La même chose s'applique à toutes les gammes d'ondes électromagnétiques dont les ondes utilisées par les radars."

http://researcher.nsc.gov.tw/public/...1016202571.pdf
Fang-Yuh Lo, Department of Physics, National Taiwan Normal University: "Observer moves toward source: frequency becomes higher. Observer moves away from source: frequency becomes lower. How much higher (lower)? Wavelength does not change. Change in velocity: Vnew=Vwave±Vobs."

http://physics.ucsd.edu/students/cou...cs2c/Waves.pdf
"Doppler effect (...) Let u be speed of source or observer (...) Doppler Shift: Moving Observer. Shift in frequency only, wavelength does not change. Speed observed = v+u (...) Observed frequency shift f'=f(1±u/v)"

http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp...9_doppler.html
"The Doppler effect is the shift in frequency of a wave that occurs when the wave source, or the detector of the wave, is moving. Applications of the Doppler effect range from medical tests using ultrasound to radar detectors and astronomy (with electromagnetic waves). (...) We will focus on sound waves in describing the Doppler effect, but it works for other waves too. (....) 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'/(lambda)=(v+vO)/(lambda)."

http://www.usna.edu/Users/physics/mu...plerEffect.pdf
"Consider the case where the observer moves toward the source. In this case, the observer is rushing head-long into the wavefronts, so that we expect v'v. In fact, the wave speed is simply increased by the observer speed, as we can see by jumping into the observer's frame of reference. Thus, v'=v+v_o=v(1+v_o/v). Finally, the frequency must increase by exactly the same factor as the wave speed increased, in order to ensure that L'=L - v'/f'=v/f. Putting everything together, we thus have: OBSERVER MOVING TOWARD SOURCE: L'=L; f'=f(1+v_o/v); v'=v+v_o."

http://www.cmmp.ucl.ac.uk/~ahh/teach...24n/lect19.pdf
Tony Harker, University College London: "The Doppler Effect: Moving sources and receivers. The phenomena which occur when a source of sound is in motion are well known. The example which is usually cited is the change in pitch of the engine of a moving vehicle as it approaches. In our treatment we shall not specify the type of wave motion involved, and our results will be applicable to sound or to light. (...) Now suppose that the observer is moving with a velocity Vo away from the source. (...) If the observer moves with a speed Vo away from the source (...), then in a time t the number of waves which reach the observer are those in a distance (c-Vo)t, so the number of waves observed is (c-Vo)t/lambda, giving an observed frequency f'=f(1-Vo/c) when the observer is moving away from the source at a speed Vo."

Pentcho Valev
#2
July 14th 13, 06:51 AM posted to sci.astro
 Pentcho Valev external usenet poster Posts: 7,851
THE ONLY THING YOU NEED TO KNOW IN PHYSICS

http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Sp.../dp/0738205257
Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light, p. 250: "Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafés in South Kensington or Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL WAS CLEARLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY. All these paradoxes resulted from well known effects such as length contraction, time dilation, or E=mc^2, all basic predictions of special relativity. And all denied the possibility of establishing a well-defined border, common to all observers, capable of containing new quantum gravitational effects."

Yet Smolin and Magueijo do not want to see THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL gone. THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL is a bad old rat but the only one they have:

http://www.angelfire.com/hi/littlepr...chapter10.html
"Hum! Hum!" said the king. "I have good reason to believe that somewhere on my planet there is an old rat. I hear him at night. You can judge this old rat. From time to time you will condemn him to death. Thus his life will depend on your justice. But you will pardon him on each occasion; for he must be treated thriftily. He is the only one we have."

Pentcho Valev
#3
July 15th 13, 05:12 PM posted to sci.astro
 Brad Guth[_3_] external usenet poster Posts: 15,176
THE ONLY THING YOU NEED TO KNOW IN PHYSICS

On Saturday, July 13, 2013 9:41:38 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:

Joao Magueijo: "The constancy of the speed of light in modern physics is not just one more thing to remember. It is THE thing to remember. You don't need to know anything else in physics really."

Saboteurs ignore the sacrosanct constancy and suggest that the speed of light relative to the observer varies with the speed of the observer:

http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/roger/PHY.../lecture18.pdf

Roger Barlow, Professor of Particle Physics: "The Doppler effect - changes in frequencies when sources or observers are in motion - is familiar to anyone who has stood at the roadside and watched (and listened) to the cars go by. It applies to all types of wave, not just sound. (...) Moving Observer. Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer is moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/lambda waves pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/lambda. So f'=(c+v)/lambda."

http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler

Albert Einstein Institute: "The frequency of a wave-like signal - such as sound or light - depends on the movement of the sender and of the receiver. This is known as the Doppler effect. (...) In the above paragraphs, we have only considered moving sources. In fact, a closer look at cases where it is the receiver that is in motion will show that this kind of motion leads to a very similar kind of Doppler effect. Here is an animation of the receiver moving towards the source: (...) 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: As the receiver moves towards each pulse, the time until pulse and receiver meet up is shortened. In this particular animation, which has the receiver moving towards the source at one third the speed of the pulses themselves, four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses."

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

"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://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...ml/node41.html

University of Texas: "Thus, the moving observer sees a wave possessing the same wavelength (...) but a different frequency (...) to that seen by the stationary observer. This phenomenon is known as the Doppler effect."

http://www.donbosco-tournai.be/expo-...fetDoppler.pdf

"La variation de la fréquence observée lorsqu'il y a mouvement relatif entre la source et l'observateur est appelée effet Doppler. (...) 6. Source immobile - Observateur en mouvement: La distance entre les crêtes, la longueur d'onde lambda ne change pas. Mais la vitesse des crêtes par rapport à l'observateur change !"

"L'effet Doppler est le décalage de fréquence d'une onde acoustique ou électromagnétique entre la mesure à l'émission et la mesure à la réception lorsque la distance entre l'émetteur et le récepteur varie au cours du temps. (...) Pour comprendre ce phénomène, il s'agit de penser à une onde à une fréquence donnée qui est émise vers un observateur en mouvement, ou vis-versa. LA LONGUEUR D'ONDE DU SIGNAL EST CONSTANTE mais si l'observateur se rapproche de la source, il se déplace vers les fronts d'ondes successifs et perçoit donc plus d'ondes par seconde que s'il était resté stationnaire, donc une augmentation de la fréquence. De la même manière, s'il s'éloigne de la source, les fronts d'onde l'atteindront avec un retard qui dépend de sa vitesse d'éloignement, donc une diminution de la fréquence. Dans le cas sonore, cela se traduit par un son plus aigu lors d'un rapprochement de la source et un son plus grave en s'éloignant de celle-ci. Dans le domaine de la lumière visible, on parle de décalage vers le bleu pour un rapprochement et vers le rouge dans le cas d'éloignement en se référant au spectre lumineux. La même chose s'applique à toutes les gammes d'ondes électromagnétiques dont les ondes utilisées par les radars."

http://researcher.nsc.gov.tw/public/...1016202571.pdf

Fang-Yuh Lo, Department of Physics, National Taiwan Normal University: "Observer moves toward source: frequency becomes higher. Observer moves away from source: frequency becomes lower. How much higher (lower)? Wavelength does not change. Change in velocity: Vnew=Vwave±Vobs."

http://physics.ucsd.edu/students/cou...cs2c/Waves.pdf

"Doppler effect (...) Let u be speed of source or observer (...) Doppler Shift: Moving Observer. Shift in frequency only, wavelength does not change. Speed observed = v+u (...) Observed frequency shift f'=f(1±u/v)"

http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp...9_doppler.html

"The Doppler effect is the shift in frequency of a wave that occurs when the wave source, or the detector of the wave, is moving. Applications of the Doppler effect range from medical tests using ultrasound to radar detectors and astronomy (with electromagnetic waves). (...) We will focus on sound waves in describing the Doppler effect, but it works for other waves too. (...) 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'/(lambda)=(v+vO)/(lambda)."

http://www.usna.edu/Users/physics/mu...plerEffect.pdf

"Consider the case where the observer moves toward the source. In this case, the observer is rushing head-long into the wavefronts, so that we expect v'v. In fact, the wave speed is simply increased by the observer speed, as we can see by jumping into the observer's frame of reference. Thus, v'=v+v_o=v(1+v_o/v). Finally, the frequency must increase by exactly the same factor as the wave speed increased, in order to ensure that L'=L - v'/f'=v/f. Putting everything together, we thus have: OBSERVER MOVING TOWARD SOURCE: L'=L; f'=f(1+v_o/v); v'=v+v_o."

http://www.cmmp.ucl.ac.uk/~ahh/teach...24n/lect19.pdf

Tony Harker, University College London: "The Doppler Effect: Moving sources and receivers. The phenomena which occur when a source of sound is in motion are well known. The example which is usually cited is the change in pitch of the engine of a moving vehicle as it approaches. In our treatment we shall not specify the type of wave motion involved, and our results will be applicable to sound or to light. (...) Now suppose that the observer is moving with a velocity Vo away from the source. (...) If the observer moves with a speed Vo away from the source (...), then in a time t the number of waves which reach the observer are those in a distance (c-Vo)t, so the number of waves observed is (c-Vo)t/lambda, giving an observed frequency f'=f(1-Vo/c) when the observer is moving away from the source at a speed Vo."

Pentcho Valev

This really works nicely when we reconsider that individual waves themselves don't actually move at all, because instead they merely exist and vanish just as quickly as they were created.

#4
July 16th 13, 09:48 AM posted to sci.astro
 Pentcho Valev external usenet poster Posts: 7,851
THE ONLY THING YOU NEED TO KNOW IN PHYSICS

The independence of the speed of light with respect to the moving observer was nonsense but Einstein managed to camouflage the falsehood:

http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/...relativity.htm
John Stachel: "But here he ran into the most blatant-seeming contradiction, which I mentioned earlier when first discussing the two principles. As noted then, the Maxwell-Lorentz equations imply that there exists (at least) one inertial frame in which the speed of light is a constant regardless of the motion of the light source. Einstein's version of the relativity principle (minus the ether) requires that, if this is true for one inertial frame, it must be true for all inertial frames. 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. We have no details of this struggle, unfortunately. Finally, after a day spent wrestling once more with the problem in the company of his friend and patent office colleague Michele Besso, the only person thanked in the 1905 SRT paper, there came a moment of crucial insight. In all of his struggles with the emission theory as well as with Lorentz's theory, he had been assuming that the ordinary Newtonian law of addition of velocities was unproblematic. It is this law of addition of velocities that allows one to "prove" that, if the velocity of light is constant with respect to one inertial frame, it cannot be constant with respect to any other inertial frame moving with respect to the first. It suddenly dawned on Einstein that this "obvious" law was based on certain assumptions about the nature of time always tacitly made."

In Imre Lakatos' terminology, procrusteanizing space and time to fit the false constant-speed-of-light postulate amounts to building a "protective belt" around the false "hard core":

http://bertie.ccsu.edu/naturesci/PhilSci/Lakatos.html
"Lakatos distinguished between two parts of a scientific theory: its "hard core" which contains its basic assumptions (or axioms, when set out formally and explicitly), and its "protective belt", a surrounding defensive set of "ad hoc" (produced for the occasion) hypotheses. (...) In Lakatos' model, we have to explicitly take into account the "ad hoc hypotheses" which serve as the protective belt. The protective belt serves to deflect "refuting" propositions from the core assumptions..."

Pentcho Valev
#5
July 16th 13, 01:47 PM posted to sci.astro
 Pentcho Valev external usenet poster Posts: 7,851
THE ONLY THING YOU NEED TO KNOW IN PHYSICS

http://cdn.preterhuman.net/texts/tho...%20science.pdf
W.H. Newton-Smith, THE RATIONALITY OF SCIENCE, 1981, p. 80: "...anomalies arising in the application of the theory are not taken as refuting these postulates. The tension generated by anomalies is to be eased through the modification of either auxiliary hypotheses, observational hypotheses or hypotheses specifying initial conditions. Guidance on what is to be done in the face of anomalies is provided by the positive heuristic of the programme, which: "consists of a partially articulated set of suggestions or hints on how to change, develop the 'refutable variants' of the research programme, how to modify, sophisticate, the 'refutable' protective belt.To see what Lakatos has in mind we need to remember the point made in the last chapter that no theory on its own ever gives rise to predictions of a testable sort. A theory itself is a set of general postulates together with their deductive consequences, and to obtain a testable prediction about a system we need to feed in both statements of the initial conditions of the system and auxiliary hypotheses. This means that what faces the 'tribunal of experience' (in Quine's phrase) is the theory plus what will be called the theory's auxiliary belt (hereafter cited as TAB). When an entrenched theory, T1, faces an anomaly, when, that is, the theory plus the auxiliary belt, A1,1, seems to be falsified by an experiment, the most reasonable thing to do may well be to modify something in the protective belt, changing it to A1,2."

The false assumption that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the emitter belonged to the "hard core" of both the ether theory and special relativity. In order to camouflage and preserve the falsehood, Fitzgerald, Lorentz and Einstein built a "protective belt" referred to by Banesh Hoffmann as "contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations":

"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann, p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also a natural one? Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether. If it was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous."

Pentcho Valev
#6
July 19th 13, 12:26 AM posted to sci.astro
 Pentcho Valev external usenet poster Posts: 7,851
THE ONLY THING YOU NEED TO KNOW IN PHYSICS

Axioms of Newton's emission theory of light:

1. The principle of relativity is valid.
2. The speed of light depends on the speed of the emitter.

Axioms of the ether theory:

1. The principle of relativity is invalid.
2. The speed of light is independent of the speed of the emitter.

Axioms of Einstein's 1905 centaur:

1. The principle of relativity is valid.
2. The speed of light is independent of the speed of the emitter.

The emission theory and the ether theory are physically reasonable, although they cannot be both true. Einstein's 1905 centaur is not even false - it is simply idiotic.

Pentcho Valev

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 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 User Control Panel Private Messages Subscriptions Who's Online Search Forums Forums Home Space Science     Space Science Misc     News     Space Shuttle     Space Station     Science     Technology     Policy     History Astronomy and Astrophysics     Astronomy Misc     Amateur Astronomy     CCD Imaging     Research     FITS     Satellites     Hubble     SETI Others     Astro Pictures     Solar     UK Astronomy     Misc About SpaceBanter     About this forum

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post An eye on an ancient starburst | Physics Update - Physics Today Sam Wormley[_2_] Astronomy Misc 0 June 28th 12 06:33 PM Physics Today: Discoverers of the accelerating expansion of the universeshare this year's physics Nobel Sam Wormley[_2_] Amateur Astronomy 2 October 6th 11 11:27 PM Teach physics to computer and it learns physics. G=EMC^2 Glazier[_1_] Misc 0 February 16th 09 01:06 PM Teach physics to computer and it learns physics. oldcoot[_2_] Misc 0 February 15th 09 03:05 PM

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:31 AM.