A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

NO HOPE FOR SPECIAL RELATIVITY



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 8th 13, 07:10 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default NO HOPE FOR SPECIAL RELATIVITY

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."

If "in time t, ct/lambda waves pass a fixed point", and if "a moving point adds another vt/lambda", then the speed of the light waves relative to the moving observer is:

c' = (lambda)(ct/lambda + vt/lambda)/t = c + v

in violation of special relativity. If v is small enough, the relativistic corrections are negligible and both c'=c+v and f'=c'/lambda become exact formulas.

Pentcho Valev
Ads
  #2  
Old June 9th 13, 06:43 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default NO HOPE FOR SPECIAL RELATIVITY

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."

(distance between subsequent pulses not affected)/(time until pulse and receiver meet up shortened) = (speed of pulses relative to receiver increased)

That is:

L/t' = c' L/t = c

where t is the time until pulse and receiver meet up when the receiver is stationary, t' is the shortened time when the receiver is moving, L is the wavelength, c is the speed of the light relative to the stationary receiver and c' is the speed of the light relative to the moving receiver.

No hope for special relativity.

Pentcho Valev
  #3  
Old June 9th 13, 10:43 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default NO HOPE FOR SPECIAL RELATIVITY

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."

If "in a time t the number of waves which reach the observer are those in a distance (c-Vo)t", then the speed of the light waves relative to the observer is:

c' = ((c - Vo)t)/t = c - Vo

in violation of special relativity. The frequency measured by the moving observer is:

f' = f(1 - Vo/c) = c'/L = (c - Vo)/L

where L is the wavelength.

No hope for special relativity.

Pentcho Valev
  #4  
Old June 11th 13, 03:03 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default NO HOPE FOR SPECIAL RELATIVITY

The gravitational redshift as measured in numerous experiments confirms Newton's emission theory of light according to which, in a gravitational field, the speed of light varies just like the speed of ordinary mechanical objects:

http://www.einstein-online.info/spot...t_white_dwarfs
Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. (...) The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..."

That is, the shift in frequency is caused by the shift in the speed of light in a gravitational field, as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light. It can be shown that, if the speed of light varies with the gravitational potential as predicted by the emission theory (c'=c(1+gh/c^2)), then, in gravitation-free space, it varies with the speed of the observer again in accordance with the emission theory (c'=c+v):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ2SVPahBzg
"The light is perceived to be falling in a gravitational field just like a mechanical object would. (...) The change in speed of light with change in height is dc/dh=g/c."

Integrating dc/dh=g/c gives:

c' = c(1 + gh/c^2)

Equivalently, in gravitation-free space where a rocket of length h accelerates with acceleration g, a light signal emitted by the front end will be perceived by an observer at the back end to have a speed:

c' = c(1 + gh/c^2) = c + v

where v is the speed the observer has at the moment of reception of the light relative to the emitter at the moment of emission. Clearly, the speed of light varies with both the gravitational potential and the speed of the observer, just as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light.

No hope for special relativity.

Pentcho Valev
  #5  
Old June 16th 13, 01:33 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default NO HOPE FOR SPECIAL RELATIVITY

Einsteinians readily admit that, for waves other than light waves, the speed of the waves (relative to the observer) varies with the speed of the observer and this explains the Doppler frequency shift:

http://faculty.washington.edu/wilkes...erference..pdf
"Sound waves have speed c, and f and L are related by c=Lf. For an observer moving relative to medium with speed u, apparent propagation speed c' will be different: c'=cu. Wavelength cannot change - it's a constant length in the medium, and same length in moving coordinate system (motion does not change lengths). Observed frequency has to change, to match apparent speed and fixed wavelength: f'=c'/L."

Einsteinians use the same argument and deduce the same frequency shift (f'=c'/L=(c+v)/L) for light waves as well:

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."

The only difference between Doppler in sound (moving observer) and Doppler in light (moving observer) is that in the former case Einsteinians explicitly refer to the variable speed of the waves (relative to the moving observer) while in the case of light the variation is implicit. This guarantees the safety of special relativity because Einsteinians know: if something is implicit, then it is dangerous and should never become explicit, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Yet even Divine Albert's world is not eternal and sooner or later Einsteinians will be faced with an embarrassing question:

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/con...ent=a909857880
Peter Hayes "The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox" : Social Epistemology, Volume 23, Issue 1 January 2009, pages 57-78: "The gatekeepers of professional physics in the universities and research institutes are disinclined to support or employ anyone who raises problems over the elementary inconsistencies of relativity. A winnowing out process has made it very difficult for critics of Einstein to achieve or maintain professional status. Relativists are then able to use the argument of authority to discredit these critics. Were relativists to admit that Einstein may have made a series of elementary logical errors, they would be faced with the embarrassing question of why this had not been noticed earlier. Under these circumstances the marginalisation of antirelativists, unjustified on scientific grounds, is eminently justifiable on grounds of realpolitik. Supporters of relativity theory have protected both the theory and their own reputations by shutting their opponents out of professional discourse."

Pentcho Valev
  #6  
Old June 17th 13, 08:47 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default NO HOPE FOR SPECIAL RELATIVITY

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.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."

Since "the moving observer sees a wave possessing the same wavelength (...) but a different frequency (...) to that seen by the stationary observer" and "the wave speed is simply increased by the observer speed, as we can see by jumping into the observer's frame of reference", that's the end of special relativity. Yet, for the sake of argument, let us try to save the Divine Theory by adding a life-belt:

"The moving observer sees a wave possessing the same wavelength" is WRONG for light waves. "The wave speed is simply increased by the observer speed, as we can see by jumping into the observer's frame of reference", but this is only valid for waves other than light waves. For light waves the frequency increase obeys the same formula (f'=f(1+v/c)=(c+v)/L) but the physical mechanism is entirely different. The speed of the light waves relative to the observer remains the same, c'=c, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity, so the increase in frequency can only be caused by a decrease in the wavelength: L'=c'/f'=c/f'=cL/(c+v)..

How can the motion of the observer change the wavelength of the incoming light? Einsteiniana's zombies see no problem with that and believe that the motion of the observer gloriously changes the wavelength of any waves, not just light:

http://www.lp2i-poitiers.fr/doc/aps/...oppleffet.html
"The observer moves closer to the source. The wave received has a shorter wavelength (higher frequency) than that emitted by the source. The observer moves away from the source. The wave received has a longer wavelength (lower frequency) than that emitted by the source."

As a rule, Einsteiniana's hypnotists obey crimestop when it comes to explaining how the motion of the observer changes the wavelength:

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwe...hapter2.9.html
"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."

Yet there is a curious exception: the hypnotist Tom Roberts did explain the inexplicable (so far no brother Einsteinian has confirmed Roberts' discovery):

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci....g/sCBYNj3IcoQJ
Tom Roberts: "In particular, light does not "have" a wavelength; wavelength is a MEASURED property of a light ray, not an intrinsic one -- it depends on HOW IT IS MEASURED."

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci....g/zHKzRalaOFgJ
Tom Roberts: "Differently moving inertial observers NECESSARILY have measuring instruments oriented differently in spacetime, and the different orientations of clocks and rulers are correlated such that for a light ray they always measure c."

http://www.einstein-website.de/image...alEinstein.jpg
"The Riverside Church in New York, west portal - upper line, second of right. In 1930, during a stay in New York, Albert Einstein and his wife visited the Riverside Church, too. During the detailed guided tour through the church Einstein was also shown the sculptures at the west portal. He was told that only one of the sculptures there represented a living person, and that was he himself. What Einstein is supposed to have thought in that moment when he heard that information and saw himself immortalized in stone? Contemporaries reported that he looked at the sculpture calmly and thoughtfully."

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-J...lastsupper.jpg
Divine Albert and his apostles (Tom Roberts will replace Newton soon)

http://www.haverford.edu/physics/songs/divine.htm
DIVINE EINSTEIN. "No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein not Maxwell, Curie, or Bohr! His fame went glo-bell, he won the Nobel - He should have been given four! No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein, Professor with brains galore! No-one could outshine Professor Einstein! He gave us special relativity, That's always made him a hero to me! No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein, Professor in overdrive!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ
We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Everything is relative, even simultaneity, and soon Einstein's become a de facto physics deity. 'cos we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.

Pentcho Valev
  #7  
Old June 18th 13, 03:51 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default NO HOPE FOR SPECIAL RELATIVITY

http://rockpile.phys.virginia.edu/mod04/mod34.pdf
Paul Fendley: "Now let's see what this does to the frequency of the light. We know that even without special relativity, observers moving at different velocities measure different frequencies. (This is the reason the pitch of an ambulance changes as it passes you it doesn't change if you're on the ambulance). This is called the Doppler shift, and for small relative velocity v it is easy to show that the frequency shifts from f to f(1+v/c) (it goes up heading toward you, down away from you). There are relativistic corrections, but these are negligible here."

That is, in the moving-observer case, the frequency is proportional to c'=c+v, the speed of light relative to the moving observer:

f' = f(1+v/c) = (c+v)/lambda = c'/lambda

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."

No hope for special relativity.

Pentcho Valev
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
THE SPECIAL RELATIVITY FUDGE Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 February 21st 13 04:59 PM
THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE TO SPECIAL RELATIVITY Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 49 April 1st 10 12:58 AM
WHO IS WELCOME TO TRY TO KILL SPECIAL RELATIVITY? Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 124 May 18th 09 03:13 PM
GENERAL RELATIVITY WITHOUT SPECIAL RELATIVITY Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 12 January 1st 09 04:20 PM
FOREVER SPECIAL RELATIVITY Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 5 September 22nd 07 02:24 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2022 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.