THE MOST DIFFICULT PROBLEM IN RELATIVITY

http://www.websters-dictionary-onlin...ppler%20effect
"In the limit where the speed of the wave is much greater than the
relative speed of the source and observer (this is often the case with
electromagnetic waves, e.g. light), the relationship between observed
frequency f' and emitted frequency f is given by:

Change in frequency delta_f = fv/c = v/lambda

Observed frequency f' = f + fv/c

where f is the transmitted frequency; v is the velocity of the
transmitter relative to the receiver in meters per second: positive
when moving towards one another, negative when moving away; c is the
speed of wave (3�~108 m/s for electromagnetic waves travelling in a
vacuum); lambda is the wavelength of the transmitted wave subject to
change.
_______________________________________
[end of quotation]

For a century Einsteinians have been trying to combine the above
formulas with the formula:

f' = c'/lambda

where c' is the speed of the wave relative to the observer. They have
had some success with some waves but not with light waves: any time
they perform the procedure they obtain c'=c+v which is of course
absurd, impossible, disastrous etc. The problem is so difficult that
some Einsteinians suspect that it has no solution at all.

Pentcho Valev

The most difficult problem in relativity unsolved at University
College London:

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 and
light. (...) Now suppose that the observer is moving with a velocity
Vo away from the source. We can tackle this case directly in the same
way as we treated the moving 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 ct-Vo*t, so the
number of waves observed is (ct-Vo*t)/lambda, giving an observed
frequency f'=f((c-Vo)/c) when the observer is moving away from the
source at a speed Vo."

Einsteinians at UCL combine the formula f'=f((c-Vo)/c) with f'=c'/
lambda (c' is the speed of the wave relative to the observer) and
obtain c'=c-Vo. "That is correct for sound", they say, "but for
light... no, absurd, impossible, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe
in relativity, relativity, relativity!"

Eventually Einsteinians come to the coclusion that the problem has no
solution at all.

Pentcho Valev

A second unsolvable problem in relativity: Light falls and even
accelerates in a gravitational field but its speed does not change, no
it doesn't, impossible, absurd, help, Divine Einstein, yes we all
believe in relativity, relativity, relativity:

http://sethi.lamar.edu/bahrim-cristi...t-lens_PPT.pdf
Dr. Cristian Bahrim: "If we accept the principle of equivalence, we
must also accept that light falls in a gravitational field with the
same acceleration as material bodies. In the laboratory frame the
light ray will be accelerated downward with the acceleration of the
laboratory. In a uniform gravitational field the light accelerates
downward with the local acceleration of gravity."

http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q1635.html
Question: "When a photon falls in a gravitational well, does its speed
exceed 'c'?"
Dr. Sten Odenwald: "No. The frequency of the light just increases or
decreases depending on where you are located. The 'local' speed stays
the same as measured by someone falling into the well and watching it
pass by. This is the only observer who is in what relativity would
consider a 'proper rest frame'."

Pentcho Valev

The most difficult problem in relativity unsolved at UCSD:

http://physics.ucsd.edu/students/cou...ecture5-11.pdf
"Doppler Shift. As long as the velocity of the observer, v, is much
smaller than the speed of light, c, (for the case of sound waves much
smaller than the speed of sound) then the expression that we derived
is a very good approximation. Taking into account v may be in the
opposite direction f'=f(1±v/c). At this point you might ask why the
shift in direction from the discussion of the equivalence principle.
Soon, as we shall see, we can put this together with the equivalence
principle to derive the gravitational redshift of light! Gravitational
Redshift of Light. In 1960 Pound and Rebka and later, 1965, with an
improved version Pound and Snider measured the gravitational redshift
of light using the Harvard tower, h=22.6m. From the equivalence
principle, at the instant the light is emitted from the transmitter,
only a freely falling observer will measure the same value of f that
was emitted by the transmitter. But the stationary receiver is not
free falling. During the time it takes light to travel to the top of
the tower, t=h/c, the receiver is traveling at a velocity, v=gt, away
from a free falling receiver. Hence the measured frequency is: f'=f(1-
v/c)=f(1-gh/c^2)."

Einsteinians at UCSD combine the equations f'=f(1-v/c)=f(1-gh/c^2)
with f'=c'/lambda (c' is the speed of the light relative to the
observer/receiver) and obtain c'=c-v=c(1-gh/c^2). "It all looks so
logical", they say, "and yet that is... no, impossible, absurd,
Newton's emission theory, help, help, Divine Einstein, yes we all
believe in relativity, relativity, relativity!"

Eventually Einsteinians come to the coclusion that the problem has no
solution at all.

Pentcho Valev

On Jan 17, 10:53*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
The most difficult problem in relativity unsolved at UCSD:

http://physics.ucsd.edu/students/cou...ed/physics11/d...
"Doppler Shift. As long as the velocity of the observer, v, is much
smaller than the speed of light, c, (for the case of sound waves much
smaller than the speed of sound) then the expression that we derived
is a very good approximation. Taking into account v may be in the
opposite direction f'=f(1±v/c). At this point you might ask why the
shift in direction from the discussion of the equivalence principle.
Soon, as we shall see, we can put this together with the equivalence
principle to derive the gravitational redshift of light! Gravitational
Redshift of Light. In 1960 Pound and Rebka and later, 1965, with an
improved version Pound and Snider measured the gravitational redshift
of light using the Harvard tower, h=22.6m. From the equivalence
principle, at the instant the light is emitted from the transmitter,
only a freely falling observer will measure the same value of f that
was emitted by the transmitter. But the stationary receiver is not
free falling. During the time it takes light to travel to the top of
the tower, t=h/c, the receiver is traveling at a velocity, v=gt, away
from a free falling receiver. Hence the measured frequency is: f'=f(1-
v/c)=f(1-gh/c^2)."

Einsteinians at UCSD combine the equations f'=f(1-v/c)=f(1-gh/c^2)
with f'=c'/lambda (c' is the speed of the light relative to the
observer/receiver) and obtain c'=c-v=c(1-gh/c^2). "It all looks so
logical", they say, "and yet that is... no, impossible, absurd,
Newton's emission theory, help, help, Divine Einstein, yes we all
believe in relativity, relativity, relativity!"

Eventually Einsteinians come to the coclusion that the problem has no
solution at all.

Pentcho Valev



Idiot

Professor Carl Mungan is torturing brothers Einsteinians (below
lambda, the wavelength symbol Mungan uses, is replaced by L):

http://www.usna.edu/Users/physics/mu...plerEffect.pdf
Carl Mungan: "Special Case II: Moving Observer (with Stationary Source
and Medium). Here L'=L because the medium is at rest relative to the
source. Absent special relativistic effects, lengths are frame-
invariant quantities. 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."

At first the only formula brothers Einsteinians see is v'=v+v_o
showing how the speed of the wave (relative to the observer) varies
with the speed of the observer. Their initial reaction is: "What? No!
Impossible! Absurd! Variable speed of light? Help! Help! Divine
Einstein! Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity!"

Then brothers Einsteinians realize that the panic is perhaps not
justified - Mungan clearly says "Absent special relativistic effects,
lengths are frame-invariant quantities". Now brothers Einsteinians'
reaction is: "Yes! Yes! Yes! Oh yes! The moving observer may not be
able to change the wavelength outside special relativity but in
special relativity he does change it and that's it! Divine Einstein!
Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity!"

In the end the feeling is gloomy again. Mungan obtains the correct
formula for Doppler shift in light waves, f'=f(1+v_o/v), based on the
false assumption that the wavelength does not change. Perhaps the
assumption is not quite false? Perhaps the wavelength does not vary
with the speed of the observer after all? But then... Brothers
Einsteinians feel like Dido after Aeneas left her:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVhvl... DC4254351D96
"Remember me, remember me, but ah! Forget my fate. Remember me, but
ah! Forget my fate. Remember me, remember me, but ah! Forget my fate.
Remember me, but ah! Forget my fate."

Pentcho Valev