Prev: TODAY ONLY! ORIFICES STITCHED AT ORIFICE EMPORIUM - HALF-PRICE!
Next: really predicting the masses of elementary particles #568 Correcting Math
From: Zinnic on 16 Apr 2010 10:06
On Apr 14, 1:00 pm, Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote:
> On Apr 14, 9:25 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >http://www.eng.uwi.tt/depts/elec/staff/sgift/special_relativity.pdf
> > The Invalidation of a Sacred Principle of Modern Physics
> > Stephan J.G. Gift
> > "[TRUTH] For a stationary observer O, the stationary light source S
> > emits light at speed c, wavelength Lo, and frequency Fo given by Fo=c/
> > Lo. If the observer moves toward S at speed v, then again based on
> > classical analysis, the speed of light relative to the moving observer
> > is (c + v) and not c as required by Einstein's law of light
> > propagation. Hence the observer intercepts wave-fronts of light at a
> > frequency fA, which is higher than Fo, as is observed, and is given by
> > fA = (c+v)/Lo > Fo. (...) In light of this elementary result
> > invalidating STR, it is difficult to understand why this invalid
> > theory has been (and continues to be) accepted for the past 100 years.
> > It is time to reject STR with its incorrect light speed invariance
> > principle long pointed out by Ives, and [LIE] return to the Lorentz-
> > Maxwell ether-based theory elucidated by Ives and summarized by
> > Erlichson."
>
> > Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> > Pernicious relativism in Einsteiniana:
>
> > As you start moving against waves, wavecrests start hitting you more
> > frequently, that is, their speed relative to you increases. In
> > Einsteiniana this trivial (but very dangerous) truth is replaced by a
> > new truth: wavecrests start hitting you more frequently because the
> > wavelength somehow depends on your speed and decreases as soon as you
> > start moving against the waves (accordingly, the wavecrests continue
> > hitting you with CONSTANT SPEED, that is, believers sing "Divine
> > Einstein" and go into convulsions):
>
> >http://sampit.geol.sc.edu/Doppler.html
> > "Moving observer: A man is standing on the beach, watching the tide.
> > The waves are washing into the shore and over his feet with a constant
> > frequency and wavelength. However, if he begins walking out into the
> > ocean, the waves will begin hitting him more frequently, leading him
> > to perceive that the wavelength of the waves has decreased. Again,
> > this phenomenon is due to the fact that the source and the observer
> > are not the in the same frame of reference. Although the wavelength
> > appears to have decreased to the man, the wavelength would appear
> > constant to a jellyfish floating along with the tide."
>
> >http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/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)."
>
> > Now the top of a tower sends light towards the ground and the
> > frequency increases again: F'=F(1+V/c^2), where F is the frequency
> > measured at the top, F' is the frequency measured at the ground and V
> > is the gravitational potential difference between the top and the
> > ground. The old Newtonian truth is: wavecrests hit the ground more
> > frequently because their speed has increased between the top and the
> > ground: c'=c(1+V/c^2). Einsteinians hate the old Newtonian truth
> > because it implies that wavecrests hit an accelerated observer with
> > speed c'=c+v, where v is the speed of the emitter relative to the
> > observer. Accordingly, two additional truths have replaced the old
> > Newtonian truth in Einsteiniana:
>
> > (1) Wavecrests hit the ground more frequently because clocks at the
> > top of the tower somehow run faster than clocks at the ground.
> > Accordingly, wavecrests hit the ground with UNCHANGED SPEED c'=c, that
> > is, believers sing "Divine Einstein" and go into convulsions.
>
> > (2) Wavecrests hit the ground with frequency F'=F(1+V/c^2) but their
> > speed relative to the ground is greater than in the old Newtonian
> > truth: the new speed is c'=c(1+2V/c^2). Believers accept this new
> > truth as well but sing "Divine Einstein" without enthusiasm and do not
> > go into convulsions.
>
> >http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17.html#seventeen
> > George Orwell: "Doublethink means the power of holding two
> > contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both
> > of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories
> > must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with
> > reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself
> > that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it
> > would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to
> > be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and
> > hence of guilt. Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since
> > the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while
> > retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To
> > tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any
> > fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary
> > again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed,
> > to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take
> > account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably
> > necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to
> > exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is
> > tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this
> > knowledge ; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead
> > of the truth. (...) It need hardly be said that the subtlest
> > practitioners of doublethink are those who invented doublethink and
> > know that it is a vast system of mental cheating. In our society,
> > those who have the best knowledge of what is happening are also those
> > who are furthest from seeing the world as it is. In general, the
> > greater the understanding, the greater the delusion ; the more
> > intelligent, the less sane."
>
> > Pentcho Valev
> > pva...(a)yahoo.com
>
> Pencho, you seem to be an expert in this area so I would appreciate
> some clarification of  speeds relative to that of light (photons).
> Different observers moving at different speeds are in different
> inertial frames of reference from each other and from light
> (photons).
>
> If an observer moves at V towards a stationary light source so that
> the speed of approach of the light wavefront and the observer is C+V,
> which is travelling faster than the speed of light (C), the observer
> or the light wave front?
> It cannot be both because their intrinsic speeds of approach would be
> less than C. That is,  (C+V)/2.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Pencho, thanks for your non-answer. It helps to clarify your position.
Two other points you could clear up for me:
a) If the relative velocity of a light wavefront from a stationary
source towards a moving observer is +(C+V) and that of the obvserver
towards the wavefront is -(C+V), which gets to be the Prime Mover, the
wavefront or the observer?
b) If the relative velocities of the lightfront and observer [+ or- (C
+V)] are equated as real velocities, could you explain the mechanism
whereby each speeds up the other before they meet? Thanx
From: Pentcho Valev on 22 Apr 2010 01:44
TRUTH:

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/YBA/M31-velocity/doppler-shift-derive-2.html
"However, if the siren is moving towards the stationary observer, then
the distance between successive wavecrests is reduced by the distance
traveled by the source during one period. This resulting decreased
wavelength..."

In this case Einsteiniana's teachers establish the LIE (which is
always one leap ahead of the truth) in an implicit way: the reader
gets the impression that, even if the observer were moving towards the
stationary wave source, the wavelength would decrease again (and the
speed of the wave relative to the observer would remain CONSTANT, that
is, believers sing "Divine Einstein" and go into convulsions).

Pentcho Valev wrote:

Pernicious relativism in Einsteiniana:

As you start moving against waves, wavecrests start hitting you more
frequently, that is, their speed relative to you increases. In
Einsteiniana this trivial (but very dangerous) truth is replaced by a
new truth: wavecrests start hitting you more frequently because the
wavelength somehow depends on your speed and decreases as soon as you
start moving against the waves (accordingly, the wavecrests continue
hitting you with CONSTANT SPEED, that is, believers sing "Divine
Einstein" and go into convulsions):

http://sampit.geol.sc.edu/Doppler.html
"Moving observer: A man is standing on the beach, watching the tide.
The waves are washing into the shore and over his feet with a constant
frequency and wavelength. However, if he begins walking out into the
ocean, the waves will begin hitting him more frequently, leading him
to perceive that the wavelength of the waves has decreased. Again,
this phenomenon is due to the fact that the source and the observer
are not the in the same frame of reference. Although the wavelength
appears to have decreased to the man, the wavelength would appear
constant to a jellyfish floating along with the tide."

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/big_bang/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)."

Now the top of a tower sends light towards the ground and the
frequency increases again: F'=F(1+V/c^2), where F is the frequency
measured at the top, F' is the frequency measured at the ground and V
is the gravitational potential difference between the top and the
ground. The old Newtonian truth is: wavecrests hit the ground more
frequently because their speed has increased between the top and the
ground: c'=c(1+V/c^2). Einsteinians hate the old Newtonian truth
because it implies that wavecrests hit an accelerated observer with
speed c'=c+v, where v is the speed of the emitter relative to the
observer. Accordingly, two additional truths have replaced the old
Newtonian truth in Einsteiniana:

(1) Wavecrests hit the ground more frequently because clocks at the
top of the tower somehow run faster than clocks at the ground.
Accordingly, wavecrests hit the ground with UNCHANGED SPEED c'=c, that
is, believers sing "Divine Einstein" and go into convulsions.

(2) Wavecrests hit the ground with frequency F'=F(1+V/c^2) but their
speed relative to the ground is greater than in the old Newtonian
truth: the new speed is c'=c(1+2V/c^2). Believers accept this new
truth as well but sing "Divine Einstein" without enthusiasm and do not
go into convulsions.

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17.html#seventeen
George Orwell: "Doublethink means the power of holding two
contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both
of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories
must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with
reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself
that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it
would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to
be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and
hence of guilt. Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since
the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while
retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To
tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any
fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary
again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed,
to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take
account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably
necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to
exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is
tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this
knowledge ; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead
of the truth. (...) It need hardly be said that the subtlest
practitioners of doublethink are those who invented doublethink and
know that it is a vast system of mental cheating. In our society,
those who have the best knowledge of what is happening are also those
who are furthest from seeing the world as it is. In general, the
greater the understanding, the greater the delusion ; the more
intelligent, the less sane."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev(a)yahoo.com
From: Pentcho Valev on 28 Apr 2010 09:17
Einsteinians refer to doublethink as "stubbornly persistent
illusion":

http://rescomp.stanford.edu/~cheshire/EinsteinQuotes.html
Albert Einstein: "People like us, who believe in physics, know that
the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly
persistent illusion."

http://www.amazon.com/Stubbornly-Persistent-Illusion-Scientific-ebook/dp/B000XPPVT2
"A Stubbornly Persistent Illusion: The Essential Scientific Works of
Albert Einstein"
by Stephen Hawking (Editor)

Pentcho Valev wrote:

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17.html#seventeen
George Orwell: "Doublethink means the power of holding two
contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both
of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories
must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with
reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself
that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it
would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to
be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and
hence of guilt. Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since
the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while
retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To
tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any
fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary
again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed,
to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take
account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably
necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to
exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is
tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this
knowledge ; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead
of the truth. (...) It need hardly be said that the subtlest
practitioners of doublethink are those who invented doublethink and
know that it is a vast system of mental cheating. In our society,
those who have the best knowledge of what is happening are also those
who are furthest from seeing the world as it is. In general, the
greater the understanding, the greater the delusion ; the more
intelligent, the less sane."

Painful doublethink in Einsteiniana (space and time are NOT a
malleable fabric and the passage of time is NOT an illusion but space
and time SHOULD BE a malleable fabric and the passage of time SHOULD
BE an illusion because Divine Albert said so):

http://www.geekitude.com/gl/public_html/article.php?story=20050422141509987
Brian Greene: "I certainly got very used to the idea of relativity,
and therefore I can go into that frame of mind without it seeming like
an effort. But I feel and think about the world as being organized
into past, present and future. I feel that the only moment in time
that's really real is this moment right now. And I feel [that what
happened a few moments ago] is gone, and the future is yet to be. It
still feels right to me. But I know in my mind intellectually that's
wrong. Relativity establishes that that picture of the universe is
wrong, and if I work hard, I can force myself to recognize the fallacy
in my view or thinking; but intuitively it's still what I feel. So
it's a daily struggle to keep in mind how the world works, and
juxtapose that with experience that [I get] a thousand, even million
times a day from ordinary comings and goings."

http://www.evene.fr/celebre/actualite/2005-annee-einstein-114.php
"Les articles parus en 1905 dans la revue 'Annalen der Physik'
révolutionnent non seulement le petit monde de la physique, mais aussi
la perception commune de grands concepts tels que le temps, l'espace
ou la matière. Enfin...ils auraient dû... car si les théories
einsteiniennes sont aujourd'hui admises et célébrées partout dans le
monde scientifique, si une grande partie de la recherche fondamentale
a pour objectif de les développer, le commun des mortels continue
cependant à parler du temps, de l'espace, et de la matière comme il le
faisait au XIXème siècle. C'est ce que déplore Thibault Damour,
physicien et auteur d'un ouvrage passionnant intitulé 'Si Einstein
m'était conté', dans lequel il dresse un portrait scientifique du prix
Nobel. "Loin d'avoir été assimilées par tout un chacun", écrit-il,
"les révolutions einsteiniennes sont simplement ignorées." Car les
découvertes dont on parle dépassent de très loin - comme souvent - les
préoccupations purement scentifiques. Il est, de fait, encore
extrêmement complexe et ardu de comprendre la notion de temps non pas
comme un flux, un absolu, mais comme un relatif, pouvant ralentir
selon la vitesse de l'observateur."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026831.500-what-makes-the-universe-tick.html
"General relativity knits together space, time and gravity.
Confounding all common sense, how time passes in Einstein's universe
depends on what you are doing and where you are. Clocks run faster
when the pull of gravity is weaker, so if you live up a skyscraper you
age ever so slightly faster than you would if you lived on the ground
floor, where Earth's gravitational tug is stronger. "General
relativity completely changed our understanding of time," says Carlo
Rovelli, a theoretical physicist at the University of the
Mediterranean in Marseille, France.....It is still not clear who is
right, says John Norton, a philosopher based at the University of
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Norton is hesitant to express it, but his
instinct - and the consensus in physics - seems to be that space and
time exist on their own. The trouble with this idea, though, is that
it doesn't sit well with relativity, which describes space-time as a
malleable fabric whose geometry can be changed by the gravity of
stars, planets and matter."

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/passage/index.html
John Norton: "A common belief among philosophers of physics is that
the passage of time of ordinary experience is merely an illusion. The
idea is seductive since it explains away the awkward fact that our
best physical theories of space and time have yet to capture this
passage. I urge that we should resist the idea. We know what illusions
are like and how to detect them. Passage exhibits no sign of being an
illusion....Following from the work of Einstein, Minkowski and many
more, physics has given a wonderfully powerful conception of space and
time. Relativity theory, in its most perspicacious form, melds space
and time together to form a four-dimensional spacetime. The study of
motion in space and and all other processes that unfold in them merely
reduce to the study of an odd sort of geometry that prevails in
spacetime. In many ways, time turns out to be just like space. In this
spacetime geometry, there are differences between space and time. But
a difference that somehow captures the passage of time is not to be
found. There is no passage of time. There are temporal orderings. We
can identify earlier and later stages of temporal processes and
everything in between. What we cannot find is a passing of those
stages that recapitulates the presentation of the successive moments
to our consciousness, all centered on the one preferred moment of
"now." At first, that seems like an extraordinary lacuna. It is, it
would seem, a failure of our best physical theories of time to capture
one of time's most important properties. However the longer one works
with the physics, the less worrisome it becomes....I was, I confess, a
happy and contented believer that passage is an illusion. It did
bother me a little that we seemed to have no idea of just how the news
of the moments of time gets to be rationed to consciousness in such
rigid doses.....Now consider the passage of time. Is there a
comparable reason in the known physics of space and time to dismiss it
as an illusion? I know of none. The only stimulus is a negative one.
We don't find passage in our present theories and we would like to
preserve the vanity that our physical theories of time have captured
all the important facts of time. So we protect our vanity by the
stratagem of dismissing passage as an illusion."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev(a)yahoo.com
From: Kevin on 11 May 2010 12:57
On Apr 4, 3:02 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17.html#seventeen
> George Orwell: "Doublethink means the power of holding two
> contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both
> of them.

You're saying that as if it were a bad thing,.. right? Doublethink is
a critical component of mankind's ability to adapt... The ability to
'doublethink' is a great accomplishment in the one's who can master
it... You know, we don't have the option of war anymore... We would
have long since been in a civil war if it had not been for advanced
technology, forensics, pharmaceuticals, and cameras, etc... Get used
to it... Doublethink is your only option as a means to keep your
sanity.
From: Androcles on 11 May 2010 15:55

"Kevin" <barry196263(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d73e1436-eb9e-4c82-8ca9-08c27816ef55(a)s29g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 4, 3:02 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17.html#seventeen
> George Orwell: "Doublethink means the power of holding two
> contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both
> of them.

You're saying that as if it were a bad thing,.. right? Doublethink is
a critical component of mankind's ability to adapt... The ability to
'doublethink' is a great accomplishment in the one's who can master
it... You know, we don't have the option of war anymore... We would
have long since been in a civil war if it had not been for advanced
technology, forensics, pharmaceuticals, and cameras, etc... Get used
to it... Doublethink is your only option as a means to keep your
sanity.
===============================================
Lack of cameras causes civil war...
My sanity doesn't quite jibe with that.


First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: TODAY ONLY! ORIFICES STITCHED AT ORIFICE EMPORIUM - HALF-PRICE!
Next: really predicting the masses of elementary particles #568 Correcting Math