Prev: Day of any date
Next: Errors of Bill Dubuque's perception of a valid math proof of IP; #123; 2nd ed; Euclid's IP
From: BradGuth on 13 Sep 2009 12:41
On Sep 9, 10:15 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> Premise: The wavelength is determined by the light source and cannot
> depend on the movements of the observer.
>
> Premise: (frequency)=(speed of light)/(wavelength)
>
> Conclusion: If the observer is initially at rest relative to but then
> starts moving towards the light source, the frequency (Doppler effect)
> and THE SPEED OF LIGHT INCREASE.
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...(a)yahoo.com

Correct, whereas the merging or closing velocity of two individual
photon wave-fronts, each arriving at exactly180 degrees from one
another is 2c. The speed of a photon is therefore directly relative
to the velocity of the observer (regardless of the original
transmitted monochromatic spectrum/frequency of either photon). A
Doppler demodulation of this proof should confirm this kind of dipolar
merging event.

~ BG
From: BradGuth on 13 Sep 2009 12:59
On Sep 10, 6:50 pm, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> "Kevin B. Murphy" <kmurphy...(a)comcast.net> wrote in messagenews:gJOdnSL63uon7jTXnZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 10-Sep-2009, Pentcho Valev <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com sci.math:1246404 sci.astro:542036
> >> alt.philosophy:704144 sci.logic:266843
>
> >> Premise: The wavelength is determined by the light source and cannot
> >> depend on the movements of the observer.
>
> >> Premise: (frequency)=(speed of light)/(wavelength)
>
> >> Conclusion: If the observer is initially at rest relative to but then
> >> starts moving towards the light source, the frequency (Doppler effect)
> >> and THE SPEED OF LIGHT INCREASE.
>
> >> Pentcho Valev
> >> pva...(a)yahoo.com
>
> > I think the premise here that Einstein is using here is that your clock
> > runs
> > faster if you rush towards the source of the light so there is no change
> > in
> > frequency (cycles/unit of time).
>
> No, in SR (and GR for that matter) if you move towards a light source, it
> appears to have (and in fact does have) a higher frequency. Hence the red
> shift for receding galaxies.
>
> With you as a teacher, and Valev as a student, I don't think a lot will be
> learned. Good though your intentions probably are.
>
> > --
> > If you are at war, you should be proud... If you are at peace, you should
> > be
> > ashamed.

Regardless of the original photon spectrum, the Doppler redshift/
blueshift is correct, whereas the merging or closing velocity of two
individual photon wave-fronts, each arriving at exactly180 degrees
from one another is a blueshift of 2c. The speed of a photon is
therefore its frequency is directly relative to the velocity of the
observer (regardless of the original transmitted monochromatic
spectrum/frequency of either photon). A Doppler demodulation of this
proof should confirm this kind of dipolar merging event.

Another related question; are there retro-photons (transponding or
anti-photons)?

If there’s electrons and positrons, then perhaps we should be
considering antiphotons.

~ BG
From: Pentcho Valev on 14 Sep 2009 01:46
On Sep 13, 10:18 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:
> On Sep 13, 6:28 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Premise: Einstein's equivalence principle
>
> > Conclusions:
> > If the speed of light varies with the gravitational potential V in
> > accordance with Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) given by
> > Newton's emission theory of light, then the speed of light varies with
> > the speed of the light source v in accordance with the equation c'=c+v
> > given again by Newton's emission theory of light, that is, Einstein's
> > 1905 light postulate is false.
>
> > If the speed of light varies with the gravitational potential V in
> > accordance with Einstein's 1915 equation c'=c(1+2V/c^2), then the
> > speed of light varies with the speed of the light source v in
> > accordance with the equation c'=c+2v, that is, Einstein's 1905 light
> > postulate is false.
>
> Nonsense, Pentcho. The variation of light speed as observed across a
> gravitational potential is clearly a statement made in a non-inertial
> frame.
> The second postulate explicitly refers to the speed of light being
> invariant in *inertial* reference frames.

A light source on top of a tower of height h emits light with
frequency f, speed c (relative to the source) and wavelength L. A
receiver on the ground receives light with frequency f', speed
c' (relative to the receiver) and wavelength L'. According to Newton's
emission theory of light:

f'=f(1+gh/c^2); c'=c(1+gh/c^2); L'=L

A rocket of length h accelerates with acceleration g. A light source
at the front end emits light with frequency f, speed c (relative to
the source) and wavelength L. A receiver at the back end receives
light with frequency f', speed c' (relative to the receiver) and
wavelength L'. At the moment of reception, the receiver has speed v
relative to the light source at the moment of emission. According to
Newton's emission theory of light:

f'=f(1+v/c); c'=c+v; L'=L

Einstein did not offer any reasonable alternative to the variation of
the speed of light in a gravitational field predicted by the emission
theory. Initially he was just using the equation c'=c(1+gh/c^2), then
quite stupidly (or dishonestly) replaced it with c'=c(1+2gh/c^2):

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
"So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is not constant in
a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies as
well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this were
not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational field
of stars....Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the calculation
in: 'On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light,'
Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911. which predated the full formal
development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is
widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99
of the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity.' You will find in
section 3 of that paper, Einstein's derivation of the (variable) speed
of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is,
c' = c0 ( 1 + V / c^2 )
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
speed of light c0 is measured."

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm
"In geometrical units we define c_0 = 1, so Einstein's 1911 formula
can be written simply as c=1+phi. However, this formula for the speed
of light (not to mention this whole approach to gravity) turned out to
be incorrect, as Einstein realized during the years leading up to 1915
and the completion of the general theory. In fact, the general theory
of relativity doesn't give any equation for the speed of light at a
particular location, because the effect of gravity cannot be
represented by a simple scalar field of c values. Instead, the "speed
of light" at a each point depends on the direction of the light ray
through that point, as well as on the choice of coordinate systems, so
we can't generally talk about the value of c at a given point in a non-
vanishing gravitational field. However, if we consider just radial
light rays near a spherically symmetrical (and non- rotating) mass,
and if we agree to use a specific set of coordinates, namely those in
which the metric coefficients are independent of t, then we can read a
formula analogous to Einstein's 1911 formula directly from the
Schwarzschild metric. (...) In the Newtonian limit the classical
gravitational potential at a distance r from mass m is phi=-m/r, so if
we let c_r = dr/dt denote the radial speed of light in Schwarzschild
coordinates, we have c_r =1+2phi, which corresponds to Einstein's 1911
equation, except that we have a factor of 2 instead of 1 on the
potential term."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev(a)yahoo.com
From: Zinnic on 15 Sep 2009 10:37
On Sep 13, 6:32 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> Premise: Einstein's equivalence principle
>
> Conclusions:
> If the speed of light varies with the gravitational potential V in
> accordance with Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) given by
> Newton's emission theory of light, then the speed of light varies with
> the speed of the light source v in accordance with the equation c'=c+v
> given again by Newton's emission theory of light, that is, Einstein's
> 1905 light postulate is false.
>
> If the speed of light varies with the gravitational potential V in
> accordance with Einstein's 1915 equation c'=c(1+2V/c^2), then the
> speed of light varies with the speed of the light source v in
> accordance with the equation c'=c+2v, that is, Einstein's 1905 light
> postulate is false.
>
> If the speed of light does not vary with the gravitational potential V
> (Einstein would not agree but nowadays silly Einsteinians do teach
> so), then the speed of light does not vary with the speed of the light
> source v either, that is, Einstein's 1905 light postulate is true.
>
> Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> Premise: The wavelength is determined by the light source and cannot
> depend on the movements of the observer.
>
> Premise: (frequency)=(speed of light)/(wavelength)
>
> Conclusion: If the observer is initially at rest relative to but then
> starts moving towards the light source, the frequency (Doppler effect)
> and THE SPEED OF LIGHT INCREASE.
>
> Compare with John Norton's reasoning (the TEXT IN CAPITALS is wrong):
>
> 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)."
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...(a)yahoo.com

If a train travelling in air at 110 feet/sec (v) emits a single very
short 'toot', does the toot arrive at a stationary ear in less time
that when the same toot is emitted from the same place by a motionless
train. That is-do you claim that the speed of sound in air (V)
increases from 1100 feet/sec to 1210 feet/ sec (V+v)?
ConverseIy- if the ear approaches the toot of a stationary train, is
the speed of sound similarly changed?

The Doppler effect is similar in both cases but the speed of sound in
air remains constant. If you disagree then provide evidence that the
speed changes. If you agree then explain how the Doppler effect on
light frequency can be used to deduce that there will be a change in
the speed of light.

NB. The maximum speed of light in a vacuum is an entirely different
question and is not related to the Doppler effect.
Zinnic
From: Zinnic on 16 Sep 2009 14:05
On Sep 16, 11:20 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_o>
wrote:
> "Zinnic" <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote in message
>
> news:27b23a59-ee44-450f-a190-2a0a632f6b07(a)y20g2000vbk.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 15, 11:19 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_o>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Zinnic" <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote in message
>
> >news:3177853f-1541-42b0-a38c-4305884ae865(a)r36g2000vbn.googlegroups.com....
> > On Sep 13, 6:32 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Premise: Einstein's equivalence principle
>
> > > Conclusions:
> > > If the speed of light varies with the gravitational potential V in
> > > accordance with Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) given by
> > > Newton's emission theory of light, then the speed of light varies with
> > > the speed of the light source v in accordance with the equation c'=c+v
> > > given again by Newton's emission theory of light, that is, Einstein's
> > > 1905 light postulate is false.
>
> > > If the speed of light varies with the gravitational potential V in
> > > accordance with Einstein's 1915 equation c'=c(1+2V/c^2), then the
> > > speed of light varies with the speed of the light source v in
> > > accordance with the equation c'=c+2v, that is, Einstein's 1905 light
> > > postulate is false.
>
> > > If the speed of light does not vary with the gravitational potential V
> > > (Einstein would not agree but nowadays silly Einsteinians do teach
> > > so), then the speed of light does not vary with the speed of the light
> > > source v either, that is, Einstein's 1905 light postulate is true.
>
> > > Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> > > Premise: The wavelength is determined by the light source and cannot
> > > depend on the movements of the observer.
>
> > > Premise: (frequency)=(speed of light)/(wavelength)
>
> > > Conclusion: If the observer is initially at rest relative to but then
> > > starts moving towards the light source, the frequency (Doppler effect)
> > > and THE SPEED OF LIGHT INCREASE.
>
> > > Compare with John Norton's reasoning (the TEXT IN CAPITALS is wrong):
>
> > >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)."
>
> > > Pentcho Valev
> > > pva...(a)yahoo.com
>
> Zinnic wrotes:
>
> > If a train travelling in air at 110 feet/sec (v) emits a single very
> > short 'toot', does the toot arrive at a stationary ear in less time
> > that when the same toot is emitted from the same place by a motionless
> > train. That is-do you claim that the speed of sound in air (V)
> > increases from 1100 feet/sec to 1210 feet/ sec (V+v)?
> > ConverseIy- if the ear approaches the toot of a stationary train, is
> > the speed of sound similarly changed?
> > The Doppler effect is similar in both cases but the speed of sound in
> > air remains constant.
> >If you disagree then provide evidence that the speed changes..
> >  If you agree then  explain how the Doppler effect on light frequency can
> > be used to deduce that there >will be a change in the speed of light.
> > NB. The maximum speed of light in a vacuum is an entirely different
> > question and is not related to the Doppler effect.
>
> Androcles replied:
>
> > What's the speed of sound relative to ground if the wind is blowing?
> > What's the speed of a plane relative to New York if it's flying in the jet
> > stream?
> > If you disagree then provide evidence that the speed doesn't change>
>
>  Zinnic:
> Let us not cloud the issue. You have not answered my questions!
>  Obviously, the speed of sound in air  relates to the rate of
> propagation of pressure pulses thru the air under standard
> conditions.
> Once you establish your position re my questions, we can move on to
> discussing your questions (above and below).
>
> Zinnic
> ===================================================
> Let us not cloud the issue.
> The bigot Zinnic babbled
> "NB. The maximum speed of light in a vacuum is an entirely different
>  question and is not related to the Doppler effect."
> Androcles replies
> N fuckin' B!  All (ALL) velocities are RELATIVE.
>
> Now I've established my position with regard to your bullshit
> about maximum speeds, answer my questions.

Now, now! Do not get upset!
I doubt that many will disagree with your position that " N fuckin'
B! All (ALL) velocities are RELATIVE."

But please get back to the point and explain your position regarding
my 'tooting' train, and why you believe (if you do) that Doppler
effects demonstrate the maximum speeds of sound (in air) or of light
(in space/time) are changed by the relative speeds of the source or
receivers of the emissions.

Let us take it step by step and then, I promise, we will discuss your
questions.
Remember, I am seeking to learn. To learn some physics, or if you
actually know what you are talking about.
Try to be nice!
Zinnic

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: Day of any date
Next: Errors of Bill Dubuque's perception of a valid math proof of IP; #123; 2nd ed; Euclid's IP