EINSTEINIANA: FUNDAMENTAL CAMOUFLAGE

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)."

Clearly John Norton is desperately trying to camouflage the following
truism:

"If the wavecrests hit you more frequently, then their speed relative
to you has increased"

Quantitative analysis of the camouflage:

IN THE FRAME OF THE SOURCE, the time the moving observer takes to pass
two wavecrests (one wavelength = L) is:

T = L/(c+v)

where v is the relative speed of the source and the observer. This
formula is compatible with both Newton's emission theory of light and
Einstein's special relativity. Then the two theories diverge:

According to Newton's emission theory of light, IN THE FRAME OF THE
OBSERVER, the time the moving observer takes to pass two wavecrests
(one wavelength = L') is:

T' = L'/(c+v) = T = L/(c+v)

and the frequency is:

f' = (c+v)/L

This result is valid for all waves; it takes a postscientific
schizophrenic atmosphere to safely suggest that light waves are an
exception.

According to Einstein's special relativity, IN THE FRAME OF THE
OBSERVER, the time the moving observer takes to pass two wavecrests
(one wavelength = L') is:

T' = L'/c

and the frequency is:

f' = c/L'

Clearly L'L is indispensable fundamental camouflage. Yet it is so
silly that some Einsteinians see it as a sword of Damocles suspended
over their heads.

Pentcho Valev

On Sep 28, 12:38*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...s/big_bang/ind...
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)."

Clearly John Norton is desperately trying to camouflage the following
truism:

"If the wavecrests hit you more frequently, then their speed relative
to you has increased"

Sigh.

If that were true it would be possible to obtain a radar return from
a closing target before transmitting a ping.

It's not possible. Try it.


Mark L. Fergerson

On Sep 28, 2:38*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...s/big_bang/ind...
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)."

Clearly John Norton is desperately trying to camouflage the following
truism:

"If the wavecrests hit you more frequently, then their speed relative
to you has increased"

Quantitative analysis of the camouflage:

IN THE FRAME OF THE SOURCE, the time the moving observer takes to pass
two wavecrests (one wavelength = L) is:

T = L/(c+v)

where v is the relative speed of the source and the observer. This
formula is compatible with both Newton's emission theory of light and
Einstein's special relativity. Then the two theories diverge:

According to Newton's emission theory of light, IN THE FRAME OF THE
OBSERVER, the time the moving observer takes to pass two wavecrests
(one wavelength = L') is:

T' = L'/(c+v) = T = L/(c+v)

and the frequency is:

f' = (c+v)/L

This result is valid for all waves; it takes a postscientific
schizophrenic atmosphere to safely suggest that light waves are an
exception.

According to Einstein's special relativity, IN THE FRAME OF THE
OBSERVER, the time the moving observer takes to pass two wavecrests
(one wavelength = L') is:

T' = L'/c

and the frequency is:

f' = c/L'

Clearly L'L is indispensable fundamental camouflage. Yet it is so
silly that some Einsteinians see it as a sword of Damocles suspended
over their heads.

Pentcho Valev


Pentcho, you're an idiot.

Even in classical waves in a medium, it is simply not true that all
increases in frequency are due to increased speed of the wave.

Take the Doppler effect of sound in air.
As a reminder, you can get the Doppler effect by either of TWO ways.
1. The receiver moves relative to the medium.
2. The source moves relative to the medium.

In the FIRST case, you are right, that the speed of the wave relative
to the observer has increased. In this case the wavelength stays the
same, and the speed and the frequency increase.

But in the SECOND case, the speed of the wave relative to the observer
remains unchanged, and the wavelengths do become shorter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect

Finally, your statement that "This result is valid for all waves" is
just a bald assertion that is contrary to experimental data.

Please catch up on freshman physics, before you make a further fool of
yourself.

Einsteiniana's fundamental camoflage has been triggered by the fact
that light is often frequency-shifted (that is, the frequency is
obviously variable) while the formula:

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

says that variable frequency implies either VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT or
VARIABLE WAVELENGTH. "Variable speed of light" is the most dangerous
thought in the era of Postscientism - believers should NEVER go in
that direction - so Einsteiniana's priests have been fiercely
procrusteanizing the wavelength over the years, regadless of the
absurdity involved.

Curiously, the speed of light in Einstein's general relativity has
aways been VARIABLE:

http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm
"Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German (download from:
http://www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/an...35_898-908.pdf
). It predated the full formal development of general relativity by
about four years. You can find an English translation of this paper in
the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity' beginning on page 99; 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+phi/c^2) where phi is the gravitational potential
relative to the point where the speed of light co is measured......You
can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from
the full theory of general relativity in the weak field
approximation....For the 1955 results but not in coordinates see page
93, eqn (6.28): c(r)=[1+2phi(r)/c^2]c. Namely the 1955 approximation
shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in
1911."

In the era of Postscientism the fact that the speed of light has
always been variable in Einstein's general relativity can only
increase believers' awe as they learn and then constantly repeat that,
in Einstein's general relativity, the speed of light is constant and
the wavelength stretches or shrinks accordingly:

http://www.astronomynotes.com/relativity/s4.htm
"Prediction: light escaping from a large mass should lose energy---the
wavelength must increase since the speed of light is constant."

http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_sp_gr.html
"Is light affected by gravity? If so, how can the speed of light be
constant? Wouldn't the light coming off of the Sun be slower than the
light we make here? If not, why doesn't light escape a black hole?
Yes, light is affected by gravity, but not in its speed. General
Relativity (our best guess as to how the Universe works) gives two
effects of gravity on light. It can bend light (which includes effects
such as gravitational lensing), and it can change the energy of light.
But it changes the energy by shifting the frequency of the light
(gravitational redshift) not by changing light speed. Gravity bends
light by warping space so that what the light beam sees as "straight"
is not straight to an outside observer. The speed of light is still
constant." Dr. Eric Christian

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic..._of_light.html
Steve Carlip: "Einstein went on to discover a more general theory of
relativity which explained gravity in terms of curved spacetime, and
he talked about the speed of light changing in this new theory. In the
1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote:
". . . according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the
constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of
the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity
[. . .] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of
light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light
varies with position." Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector
quantity: speed with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not
clear that he meant the speed will change, but the reference to
special relativity suggests that he did mean so. THIS INTERPRETATION
IS PERFECTLY VALID AND MAKES GOOD PHYSICAL SENSE, BUT A MORE MODERN
INTERPRETATION IS THAT THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS CONSTANT in general
relativity."

http://www.sciamdigital.com/index.cf...4044CE9331CE46
"Almost all of our information about outer space comes in the form of
light, and one of light's key features is that it gets redshifted -
its electromagnetic waves get stretched - as it travels from distant
galaxies through our ever expanding universe, in accordance with
Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity."

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/que...php?number=278
"In both cases, the light emitted by one body and received by the
other will be "redshifted" - i.e. its wavelength will be stretched, so
the color of the light is more towards the red end of the spectrum.
But there's a subtle difference, which you sort of allude to. In fact,
only in the first case (a nearby body moving away from the earth) is
the redshift caused by the Doppler effect. You've experienced the
Doppler effect if you've ever had a train go past you and heard the
whistle go to a lower pitch (corresponding to a longer wavelength for
the sound wave) as the train moves away. The Doppler effect can happen
for light waves too (though it can't be properly understood without
knowing special relativity). It turns out that just like for sound
waves, the wavelength of light emitted by an object that is moving
away from you is longer when you measure it than it is when measured
in the rest frame of the emitting object. In the case of distant
objects where the expansion of the universe becomes an important
factor, the redshift is referred to as the "cosmological redshift" and
it is due to an entirely different effect. According to general
relativity, the expansion of the universe does not consist of objects
actually moving away from each other - rather, the space between these
objects stretches. Any light moving through that space will also be
stretched, and its wavelength will increase - i.e. be redshifted.
(This is a special case of a more general phenomenon known as the
"gravitational redshift" which describes how gravity's effect on
spacetime changes the wavelength of light moving through that
spacetime. The classic example of the gravitational redshift has been
observed on the earth; if you shine a light up to a tower and measure
its wavelength when it is received as compared to its wavelength when
emitted, you find that the wavelength has increased, and this is due
to the fact that the gravitational field of the earth is stronger the
closer you get to its surface, causing time to pass slower - or, if
you like, to be "stretched" - near the surface and thereby affecting
the frequency and hence the wavelength of the light.) Practically
speaking, the difference between the two (Doppler redshift and
cosmological redshift) is this: in the case of a Doppler shift, the
only thing that matters is the relative velocity of the emitting
object when the light is emitted compared to that of the receiving
object when the light is received. After the light is emitted, it
doesn't matter what happens to the emitting object - it won't affect
the wavelength of the light that is received. In the case of the
cosmological redshift, however, the emitting object is expanding along
with the rest of the universe, and if the rate of expansion changes
between the time the light is emitted and the time it is received,
that will affect the received wavelength. Basically, the cosmological
redshift is a measure of the total "stretching" that the universe has
undergone between the time the light was emitted and the time it was
received."

Pentcho Valev

On 30 Sep, 07:10, Pentcho Valev wrote:

Usual crap deleted

Have you noticed that his repertoire of material is gradually
shrinking but that certain paragraphs get repeated more and more often
to an ever shrinking audience.

"Martin Nicholson" wrote in message
...
On 30 Sep, 07:10, Pentcho Valev wrote:

Usual crap deleted

Have you noticed that his repertoire of material is gradually
shrinking but that certain paragraphs get repeated more and more often
to an ever shrinking audience.



I quite often read his posts. They often contain interesting experimental
evidence confirming Relativity, or some worthwhile ideas.

The strange thing is that he posts all this material which supports
Relativity, but seems to think it somehow disproves Relativity.

I just ignore whatever bits he adds and read the quotes he provides. As I
said, often worthwhile.

Einsteinians love the analogy between light waves and sound waves when
the wave source is moving but the observer is not:

http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-.../dp/0553380168
Stephen Hawking: "In the 1920s, when astronomers began to look at the
spectra of stars in other galaxies, they found something most
peculiar: there were the same characteristic sets of missing colors as
for stars in our own galaxy, but they were all shifted by the same
relative amount toward the red end of the spectrum. To understand the
implications of this, we must first understand the Doppler effect. As
we have seen, visible light consists of fluctuations, or waves, in the
electromagnetic field. The wavelength (or distance from one wave crest
to the next) of light is extremely small, ranging from four to seven
ten-millionths of a meter. The different wavelengths of light are what
the human eye sees as different colors, with the longest wavelengths
appearing at the red end of the spectrum and the shortest wavelengths
at the blue end. Now imagine a source of light at a constant distance
from us, such as a star, emitting waves of light at a constant
wavelength. Obviously the wavelength of the waves we receive will be
the same as the wavelength at which they are emitted (the
gravitational field of the galaxy will not be large enough to have a
significant effect). Suppose now that the source starts moving toward
us. When the source emits the next wave crest it will be nearer to us,
so the distance between wave crests will be smaller than when the star
was stationary. This means that the wavelength of the waves we receive
is shorter than when the star was stationary. Correspondingly, if the
source is moving away from us, the wavelength of the waves we receive
will be longer. In the case of light, therefore, means that stars
moving away from us will have their spectra shifted toward the red end
of the spectrum (red-shifted) and those moving toward us will have
their spectra blue-shifted. This relationship between wavelength and
speed, which is called the Doppler effect, is an everyday experience.
Listen to a car passing on the road: as the car is approaching, its
engine sounds at a higher pitch (corresponding to a shorter wavelength
and higher frequency of sound waves), and when it passes and goes
away, it sounds at a lower pitch. The behavior of light or radio waves
is similar."

Elsewhere Einsteinians would admit that the wavelength of sound waves
remains constant as the observer changes his speed:

http://ibphysicsstuff.wikidot.com/doppler-effect
"In the case of the moving observer the wavelength of the sound does
not change, but the frequency as measured by the observer does change.
This happens because the observer encounters a wavefront more
frequently."

http://ruphe.fsac.ac.ma/cours/institut/coursins1.html
"Supposons que l'observateur se déplace vers la source S à la vitesse
Vo. La vitesse des ondes sonores par rapport à O est V'=V+Vo mais la
longueur d'onde a sa valeur normale lambda=V/f."

Yet crimestop always prevents Einsteinians from drawing the analogy
between light waves and sound waves for the case of the moving
observer:

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)."

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com...html#seventeen
George Orwell: "Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as
though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It
includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive
logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are
inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of
thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction.
Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."

Pentcho Valev

http://www.saburchill.com/physics/chapters2/0020.html
"If the observer moves with a velocity of magnitude vo (relative to
the air) then the velocity of the waves relative to the observer is (v
±vo). In this case the wavelength of the waves is unchanged."

If it were not for crimestop, Einsteinians would consider an analogous
scenario:

If the observer moves with a velocity of magnitude vo (relative to the
LIGHT SOURCE) then the velocity of the waves relative to the observer
is (c±vo). In this case the wavelength of the waves is unchanged."

This scenario is compatible with Newton's emission theory of light.
The scenario compatible with Maxwell's theory is:

If the speed of light waves relative to the observer is c and the
observer starts moving with a velocity of magnitude vo (relative to
his original frame) then the velocity of the waves relative to the
observer becomes (c±vo). In this case the wavelength of the waves is
unchanged:

http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-.../dp/0553380168
Stephen Hawking: "Maxwell's theory predicted that radio or light waves
should travel at a certain fixed speed. But Newton's theory had got
rid of the idea of absolute rest, so if light was supposed to travel
at a fixed speed, one would have to say what that fixed speed was to
be measured relative to. It was therefore suggested that there was a
substance called the "ether" that was present everywhere, even in
"empty" space. Light waves should travel through the ether as sound
waves travel through air, and their speed should therefore be relative
to the ether. Different observers, moving relative to the ether, would
see light coming toward them at different speeds, but light's speed
relative to the ether would remain fixed."

http://www.solidarity-us.org/node/58
"Maxwell's theory of electricity and magnetism provides a successful
framework with which to study light. In this theory light is an
electromagnetic wave. Using Maxwell's equations one can compute the
speed of light. One finds that the speed of light is 300,000,000
meters (186,000 miles) per second. The question arises: which inertial
observer is this speed of light relative to? As in the previous
paragraph, two inertial observers traveling relative to each other
should observe DIFFERENT SPEEDS FOR THE SAME LIGHT WAVE."

http://culturesciencesphysique.ens-l..._CSP_relat.xml
Gabrielle Bonnet, École Normale Supérieure de Lyon: "Les équations de
Maxwell font en particulier intervenir une constante, c, qui est la
vitesse de la lumière dans le vide. Par un changement de référentiel
classique, si c est la vitesse de la lumière dans le vide dans un
premier référentiel, et si on se place désormais dans un nouveau
référentiel en translation par rapport au premier à la vitesse
constante v, la lumière devrait désormais aller à la vitesse c-v si
elle se déplace dans la direction et le sens de v, et à la vitesse c+v
si elle se déplace dans le sens contraire."

Pentcho Valev wrote:

Einsteinians love the analogy between light waves and sound waves when
the wave source is moving but the observer is not:

http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-.../dp/0553380168
Stephen Hawking: "In the 1920s, when astronomers began to look at the
spectra of stars in other galaxies, they found something most
peculiar: there were the same characteristic sets of missing colors as
for stars in our own galaxy, but they were all shifted by the same
relative amount toward the red end of the spectrum. To understand the
implications of this, we must first understand the Doppler effect. As
we have seen, visible light consists of fluctuations, or waves, in the
electromagnetic field. The wavelength (or distance from one wave crest
to the next) of light is extremely small, ranging from four to seven
ten-millionths of a meter. The different wavelengths of light are what
the human eye sees as different colors, with the longest wavelengths
appearing at the red end of the spectrum and the shortest wavelengths
at the blue end. Now imagine a source of light at a constant distance
from us, such as a star, emitting waves of light at a constant
wavelength. Obviously the wavelength of the waves we receive will be
the same as the wavelength at which they are emitted (the
gravitational field of the galaxy will not be large enough to have a
significant effect). Suppose now that the source starts moving toward
us. When the source emits the next wave crest it will be nearer to us,
so the distance between wave crests will be smaller than when the star
was stationary. This means that the wavelength of the waves we receive
is shorter than when the star was stationary. Correspondingly, if the
source is moving away from us, the wavelength of the waves we receive
will be longer. In the case of light, therefore, means that stars
moving away from us will have their spectra shifted toward the red end
of the spectrum (red-shifted) and those moving toward us will have
their spectra blue-shifted. This relationship between wavelength and
speed, which is called the Doppler effect, is an everyday experience.
Listen to a car passing on the road: as the car is approaching, its
engine sounds at a higher pitch (corresponding to a shorter wavelength
and higher frequency of sound waves), and when it passes and goes
away, it sounds at a lower pitch. The behavior of light or radio waves
is similar."

Elsewhere Einsteinians would admit that the wavelength of sound waves
remains constant as the observer changes his speed:

http://ibphysicsstuff.wikidot.com/doppler-effect
"In the case of the moving observer the wavelength of the sound does
not change, but the frequency as measured by the observer does change.
This happens because the observer encounters a wavefront more
frequently."

http://ruphe.fsac.ac.ma/cours/institut/coursins1.html
"Supposons que l'observateur se déplace vers la source S à la vitesse
Vo. La vitesse des ondes sonores par rapport à O est V'=V+Vo mais la
longueur d'onde a sa valeur normale lambda=V/f."

Yet crimestop always prevents Einsteinians from drawing the analogy
between light waves and sound waves for the case of the moving
observer:

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)."

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com...html#seventeen
George Orwell: "Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as
though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It
includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive
logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are
inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of
thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction.
Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."

Pentcho Valev