Prev: correct representation of slower clocks
Next: The Large Hadron Collider could throw up evidence of new physics earlier than expected
From: Pentcho Valev on 23 Jul 2010 01:56
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/big_bang/index.html
John Norton: "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). That
increase in frequency is a shifting of the light towards the blue end
of the spectrum. The converse effect would happen if the observer were
to recede from the light source. The light's frequency would diminish
and the light would redden. For light, this effect depends only on the
relative motion of observer and source. So if the observer were at
rest and the light source moved, exactly the same thing would happen."

John Norton would have produced a revolutionary text if he had not
used the variable wavelength camouflage. Here is the text without the
camouflage:

"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
SPEED OF THE LIGHT RELATIVE TO HIM TO HAVE INCREASED AS WELL). That
increase in frequency is a shifting of the light towards the blue end
of the spectrum. The converse effect would happen if the observer were
to recede from the light source. The light's frequency would diminish
and the light would redden. For light, this effect depends only on the
relative motion of observer and source. So if the observer were at
rest and the light source moved, exactly the same thing would
happen."

Etherists do not use the variable wavelength camouflage and
accordingly do produce revolutionary texts from time to time:

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V17NO1PDF/V17N1GIF.pdf
Doppler Shift Reveals Light Speed Variation
Stephan J. G. Gift
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
The University of the West Indies
"Therefore the observed Doppler Shift or frequency change in the light
or other electromagnetic radiation resulting from movement of the
receiver toward the transmitter indicates a change in light speed
relative to the moving receiver. (...) In conclusion, a change in
radiation frequency or Doppler Shift occurs when an observer moving at
speed v much lower than c towards or away from a stationary source
intercepts electromagnetic waves from that source. This frequency
change arises because the observer intercepts the electromagnetic
radiation at a relative speed c ± v that is different from the light
speed c. Though special relativity predicts the Doppler Shift, this
light speed variation c ± v occurring in this situation directly
contradicts the light speed invariance requirement of special
relativity."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev(a)yahoo.com
From: Pentcho Valev on 23 Jul 2010 10:11
http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/
George Orwell "1984": "In the end the Party would announce that two
and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable
that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their
position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the
very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their
philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was
terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise,
but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two
and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the
past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist
only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"

In Big Brother's schizophrenic world you are free to replace the
theory predicting that 2+2=5 with a new theory predicting that, say,
2+2=17. However you are not allowed to return to the old theory
predicting that 2+2=4. That would be a crime against the civilization.
Similarly, in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world you are not allowed
to denounce Einstein's 1905 false light postulate (c'=c) and return to
its true alternative given by Newton's emission theory of light - the
equation c'=c+v showing how the speed of light varies with the speed
of the emitter. Our decaying civilization may not be able to withstand
such a blow:

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
Bryan Wallace: "Einstein's special relativity theory with his second
postulate that the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin
that holds the whole range of modern physics theories together.
Shatter this postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate farce!
(...) The speed of light is c+v."

But you are free to try to replace Einstein's "theory" with an
equivalent or even greater idiocy - that would additionally confuse
scientists' minds and so would strengthen Einsteiniana:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-lanza/spiritual-living_b_650940.html
"Did Einstein Set Science Back 100 Years? (...) Einstein's treatment
of space and time as physical objects imparts a completely wrong
starting point for investigations into the nature of reality. (...)
Relativity and biocentrism both predict the same phenomena. It's not
possible to choose one theory over the other based on experiments.
"One must choose relativity over the compensatory [biocentric]
alternatives," wrote Sklar, a leading philosopher of science "as a
matter of free choice." But with biocentrism, there's no need to
invent new dimensions and an entirely new mathematics to explain why
space and time are relative to the observer. (...) Science needs to
restore space and time to their rightful place. They belong to us, not
to the physical world."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev(a)yahoo.com
From: Jacko on 23 Jul 2010 16:19
We all know it's possible to construct theories of 'relativity' where
the speed of light is not constant but is still a measured invariant.
That's why it's m/s and not dimensionless.
From: BURT on 23 Jul 2010 17:35
On Jul 23, 1:19 pm, Jacko <jackokr...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> We all know it's possible to construct theories of 'relativity' where
> the speed of light is not constant but is still a measured invariant.
> That's why it's m/s and not dimensionless.

When lightening strikes the train moves down the tracks.

Mitch Raemsch
From: Bob Myers on 23 Jul 2010 18:23
BURT wrote:
> On Jul 23, 1:19 pm, Jacko <jackokr...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> We all know it's possible to construct theories of 'relativity' where
>> the speed of light is not constant but is still a measured invariant.
>> That's why it's m/s and not dimensionless.
>
> When lightening strikes the train moves down the tracks.

So what happens to the train when darkening strikes?

Bob M.


 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: correct representation of slower clocks
Next: The Large Hadron Collider could throw up evidence of new physics earlier than expected