The Major FLAWS of Einstein's Relativity

On Jul 30, 7:30*pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
wrote:
2nd flaw: *Doppler effect can slow the light's pulse rate but not it's
speed.

This is not a "flaw" -- that's like claiming arithmetic is flawed
because 2+2=4. This is just the way relativity works.

* * * * This is not unanticipated -- the Doppler effect for sound
* * * * in air affects sound's frequency and pulse rate, but not
* * * * its speed.

And, of course, the Doppler effect can also increase the light's pulse
rate (but not its speed).

Honest Roberts instead of introducing red herrings why don't you
consider the formula:

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

So the frequency varies with the speed of the light source, no doubt
about that, and if you want to save Divine Albert's Divine Theory, you
will have to explain why it is reasonable to believe that not the
speed of light but, rather, the wavelength, also varies with the speed
of the light source. Can you explain this miraculous dependence of the
wavelength on the speed of the light source, Honest Roberts? In
physical terms?

Pentcho Valev

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 12:29:40 -0700 (PDT), Pentcho Valev
wrote:

On Jul 30, 7:30*pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
wrote:
2nd flaw: *Doppler effect can slow the light's pulse rate but not it's
speed.

This is not a "flaw" -- that's like claiming arithmetic is flawed
because 2+2=4. This is just the way relativity works.

* * * * This is not unanticipated -- the Doppler effect for sound
* * * * in air affects sound's frequency and pulse rate, but not
* * * * its speed.

And, of course, the Doppler effect can also increase the light's pulse
rate (but not its speed).

Honest Roberts instead of introducing red herrings why don't you
consider the formula:

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

So the frequency varies with the speed of the light source, no doubt
about that, and if you want to save Divine Albert's Divine Theory, you
will have to explain why it is reasonable to believe that not the
speed of light but, rather, the wavelength, also varies with the speed
of the light source. Can you explain this miraculous dependence of the
wavelength on the speed of the light source, Honest Roberts? In
physical terms?

Pentcho Valev


Pentcho, Pentcho:

if the speed c were changeable, we could change the speed of light
by reflecting it off moving mirrors.
by repeatedly reflecting the light in a moving mirror array,
we could eventually stop the light in midst of the room
Frozen light, Pentcho, ever seen one?

this is the main reason why the emission theory of light was discarded
100 years ago.
w.

On Jul 30, 10:15*pm, hwabnig@ .- --- -. dotat wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 12:29:40 -0700 (PDT), Pentcho Valev





wrote:
On Jul 30, 7:30*pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
wrote:
2nd flaw: *Doppler effect can slow the light's pulse rate but not it's
speed.

This is not a "flaw" -- that's like claiming arithmetic is flawed
because 2+2=4. This is just the way relativity works.

* * * * This is not unanticipated -- the Doppler effect for sound
* * * * in air affects sound's frequency and pulse rate, but not
* * * * its speed.

And, of course, the Doppler effect can also increase the light's pulse
rate (but not its speed).

Honest Roberts instead of introducing red herrings why don't you
consider the formula:

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

So the frequency varies with the speed of the light source, no doubt
about that, and if you want to save Divine Albert's Divine Theory, you
will have to explain why it is reasonable to believe that not the
speed of light but, rather, the wavelength, also varies with the speed
of the light source. Can you explain this miraculous dependence of the
wavelength on the speed of the light source, Honest Roberts? In
physical terms?

Pentcho Valev


Pentcho, Pentcho:

if the speed c were changeable, we could change the speed of light
by reflecting it off moving mirrors.
by repeatedly reflecting the light in a moving mirror array,
we could eventually stop the light in midst of the room
Frozen light, Pentcho, ever seen one?

this is the main reason why the emission theory of light was discarded
100 years ago.
w.

Zombie do thought experiment yes. Zombie change the speed of light
not. Zombie refute emission theory yes. Zombie refute Divine
Relativity not. Zombie sing "Divine Einstein" yes. Zombie go into
convulsions yes.

Pentcho Valev

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

So the frequency varies with the speed of the light source, no doubt
about that, and if you want to save Divine Albert's Divine Theory, you
will have to explain why it is reasonable to believe that not the
speed of light but, rather, the wavelength, also varies with the speed
of the light source. Can you explain this miraculous dependence of the
wavelength on the speed of the light source, Honest Roberts? In
physical terms?

We already discussed it here
http://groups.google.fr/group/fr.sci...c07d03bfd85ca&
But you never gave any proof of your claim : you never really
explained your point.


And, you know that, if we begin to discuss the point you are
mentioning here, we will fall down on one of the following questions
that you absolutely refuse to answer :

1. Is Lorentz correct in the non-gravitational case. (yes/no)
2. Do you believe that string theory is compatible with Galilée ? (yes/
no)
3. Do noncommutative geometry or quantum loop gravity solve the
problem of describing a theory compatible with general relativity in
the setting of a non continuous space ?

http://groups.google.fr/group/fr.sci...c07d03bfd85ca&
http://groups.google.fr/group/fr.sci...fdc42e9464510a
http://groups.google.fr/group/fr.sci...b8d7306?hl=fr&
http://groups.google.fr/group/fr.sci...41aed26491b359
http://groups.google.fr/group/fr.sci...4ee0e291b1760d


Good night
Laurent

On Jul 30, 11:29*pm, moky wrote:
(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

So the frequency varies with the speed of the light source, no doubt
about that, and if you want to save Divine Albert's Divine Theory, you
will have to explain why it is reasonable to believe that not the
speed of light but, rather, the wavelength, also varies with the speed
of the light source. Can you explain this miraculous dependence of the
wavelength on the speed of the light source, Honest Roberts? In
physical terms?

We already discussed it here http://groups.google.fr/group/fr.sci...c07d03bfd85ca&
But you never gave any proof of your claim : you never really
explained your point.

I think I did but anyway let us assume I didn't and leave it at that
(victory is yours etc). Still, if you really want to know why variable
wavelength is an idiocy, then try to understand John Kennaugh's
argument he

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...c0706da2fb96b0

Pentcho Valev

I think I did but anyway let us assume I didn't and leave it at that
(victory is yours etc).

No, you did not, in particular, you did not gave the "simple
derivation of Einstein-1911". That derivation is still not in the link
you provided ... which does not deal with gravitation.

Find something else.

By the way, we already discussed everything which is explained in the
link, and we felt on some questions that you never answered :

1. Is Lorentz correct in the non-gravitational
case ? (yes/no)
2. Do you believe that string theory is compatible with
Galilée ? (yes/no)
3. What is your "simple derivation" of Enstein-1911 ?
4. Do noncommutative geometry or quantum loop gravity solve the
problem of describing a theory compatible with general relativity in
the setting of a non continuous
space ?

http://groups.google.fr/group/fr.sci...c07d03bfd85ca&
http://groups.google.fr/group/fr.sci...fdc42e9464510a
http://groups.google.fr/group/fr.sci...b8d7306?hl=fr&
http://groups.google.fr/group/fr.sci...41aed26491b359
http://groups.google.fr/group/fr.sci...4ee0e291b1760d
http://groups.google.fr/group/fr.sci...a62537bda02ab5


Good night
Laurent

On Jul 30, 4:28*pm, moky wrote:
I think I did but anyway let us assume I didn't and leave it at that
(victory is yours etc).

No, you did not, in particular, you did not gave the "simple
derivation of Einstein-1911". That derivation is still not in the link
you provided ... which does not deal with gravitation.

Find something else.

By the way, we already discussed everything which is explained in the
link, and we felt on some questions that you never answered :

1. Is Lorentz correct in the non-gravitational
case ? * * * * * * * * * * * * *(yes/no)
2. Do you believe that string theory is compatible with
Galilée ? * * * *(yes/no)
3. What is your "simple derivation" of Enstein-1911 ?
4. Do noncommutative geometry or quantum loop gravity solve the
*problem of describing a theory compatible with general relativity in
*the setting of a non continuous
space ?

http://groups.google.fr/group/fr.sci...read/thread/cc...

Good night
Laurent

NO FLAT ATOMS MEANS NO SPACE CONTRACTION

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 14:08:42 -0700 (PDT), Pentcho Valev
wrote:

On Jul 30, 10:15*pm, hwabnig@ .- --- -. dotat wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 12:29:40 -0700 (PDT), Pentcho Valev





wrote:
On Jul 30, 7:30*pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
wrote:
2nd flaw: *Doppler effect can slow the light's pulse rate but not it's
speed.

This is not a "flaw" -- that's like claiming arithmetic is flawed
because 2+2=4. This is just the way relativity works.

* * * * This is not unanticipated -- the Doppler effect for sound
* * * * in air affects sound's frequency and pulse rate, but not
* * * * its speed.

And, of course, the Doppler effect can also increase the light's pulse
rate (but not its speed).

Honest Roberts instead of introducing red herrings why don't you
consider the formula:

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

So the frequency varies with the speed of the light source, no doubt
about that, and if you want to save Divine Albert's Divine Theory, you
will have to explain why it is reasonable to believe that not the
speed of light but, rather, the wavelength, also varies with the speed
of the light source. Can you explain this miraculous dependence of the
wavelength on the speed of the light source, Honest Roberts? In
physical terms?

Pentcho Valev


Pentcho, Pentcho:

if the speed c were changeable, we could change the speed of light
by reflecting it off moving mirrors.
by repeatedly reflecting the light in a moving mirror array,
we could eventually stop the light in midst of the room
Frozen light, Pentcho, ever seen one?

this is the main reason why the emission theory of light was discarded
100 years ago.
w.

Zombie do thought experiment yes. Zombie change the speed of light
not. Zombie refute emission theory yes. Zombie refute Divine
Relativity not. Zombie sing "Divine Einstein" yes. Zombie go into
convulsions yes.

Pentcho Valev


Aha....when confronted with the consequences of your rubbish nonsense
you start stuttering....

Time for a hanson - roar:

Has it helped you any?... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA...
ahahaha... ahaha (hanson)


w.

On Jul 31, 2:28*am, moky wrote:
I think I did but anyway let us assume I didn't and leave it at that
(victory is yours etc).

No, you did not

Yes I did but you obiously belong to a new generation of Einsteinians
totally unable to think in physical terms. The introduction of
variable wavelength in the interpretation of both the Doppler effect
and the gravitational redshift is

On Jul 31, 2:28*am, moky wrote:
I think I did but anyway let us assume I didn't and leave it at that
(victory is yours etc).
No, you did not

Yes I did but you obiously belong to a new generation of Einsteinians
totally unable to think in physical terms. The introduction of
variable wavelength in the interpretation of both the Doppler effect
and the gravitational redshift is an IDIOCY, and any clever scientist,
either relativist or anti-relativist, can easily understand why. I
have extracted the essence of John Kennaugh's argument and hope this
time at least some suspicion will start bothering your "mathematical"
mind:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...c0706da2fb96b0
"SR is physically absurd which is why physics now insists that
physical interpretation is not a requirement in a modern theory.
Suppose you are stationary w.r.t a source 1 light year away. According
to SR light is travelling w.r.t. you at c.....If you now change your
speed so that you are travelling away from the source at v the
frequency of the light you observe will be lower due to Doppler shift
but according to SR the light still travels at c w.r.t you. If c
hasn't changed and the frequency has, then the wavelength must have
changed. The wavelength is generated at the source and what the maths
says is that in your new situation - frame of reference (FoR)- the
wavelength has changed.....The problem with this is that your change
of speed has apparently caused a change in what is happening at the
source 1 light year away with no possible causal mechanism. What is
even more absurd is that the change has to be backdated by 1 year to
avoid a 1 year delay in the frequency changing."

Pentcho Valev