FORBIDDEN LOGIC IN EINSTEINIANA
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Mutual time slowdown means both clocks go slow
Next: A storm is brewing around the scientists in line to win the Nobel Prize
From: Dr J R Stockton on 8 Aug 2010 12:47 In sci.astro message <VOidnddJvPuxG8DR4p2dnAA(a)giganews.com>, Sat, 7 Aug 2010 11:13:32, Tom Roberts <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net> posted: > >This last is just plain wrong. In GR, light always follows a null >geodesic, which means that a local measurement of a light ray's speed >will always yield c (measurement made in a locally-inertial frame using >standard clocks and rulers). This is completely independent of where >the light ray was emitted or where the measurement is made. That is not really meaningful. Consult BIPM's site. The standard clock exists in essence; its rate is given by a transition frequency of Caesium. But length is now defined by setting the speed of light to 299792458 m/s exactly. Therefore, the speed of light can no longer me measured. The experiment can be performed; but the result is a calibration of the local ruler. AFAICS, all that can really be said is that a photon cannot overtake another along the same path; and that if nothing else changes then two photons on the same path maintain a constant separation in time. But something must be added about the size of the photon and the nature of the environment; a visible photon can pass along the centre of an ordinary, but evacuated, long metal water-pipe, whereas a photon of AM radio should not. -- (c) John Stockton, near London. *@merlyn.demon.co.uk/?.?.Stockton(a)physics.org Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links. Correct <= 4-line sig. separator as above, a line precisely "-- " (RFC5536/7) Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with ">" or "> " (RFC5536/7)
From: Pentcho Valev on 9 Aug 2010 03:53 PREMISE: By increasing the perimeter of a rotating disc while keeping the linear speed of the periphery constant, one converts clocks fixed on the periphery into VIRTUALLY INERTIAL clocks (the "gravitational field" they experience is reduced to zero). CONCLUSION: In accordance with Einstein's 1905 light postulate, a clock at rest situated outside the disc, close to the periphery, will be seen running SLOWER than the virtually inertial clocks passing it. Another prediction based on Einstein's 1905 light postulate is that the clock at rest will be seen running FASTER than the virtually inertial clocks passing it ( http://www2.bartleby.com/173/23.html ). Clearly we have REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM showing that Einstein's 1905 light postulate is false. Pentcho Valev pvalev(a)yahoo.com
From: Pentcho Valev on 10 Aug 2010 11:08 PREMISE (Einstein's 1905 light postulate): http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ "...light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body." CONCLUSION: In the bug-rivet scenario described below an observer travelling with the rivet will see the bug being squashed. Observers at rest relative to the bug will see it alive and kicking. Clearly we have REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM showing that Einstein's 1905 light postulate is false. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Relativ/bugrivet.html "The bug-rivet paradox is a variation on the twin paradox and is similar to the pole-barn paradox.....The end of the rivet hits the bottom of the hole before the head of the rivet hits the wall. So it looks like the bug is squashed.....All this is nonsense from the bug's point of view. The rivet head hits the wall when the rivet end is just 0.35 cm down in the hole! The rivet doesn't get close to the bug....The paradox is not resolved." Pentcho Valev wrote: PREMISE: By increasing the perimeter of a rotating disc while keeping the linear speed of the periphery constant, one converts clocks fixed on the periphery into VIRTUALLY INERTIAL clocks (the "gravitational field" they experience is reduced to zero). CONCLUSION: In accordance with Einstein's 1905 light postulate, a clock at rest situated outside the disc, close to the periphery, will be seen running SLOWER than the virtually inertial clocks passing it. Another prediction based on Einstein's 1905 light postulate is that the clock at rest will be seen running FASTER than the virtually inertial clocks passing it ( http://www2.bartleby.com/173/23.html ). Clearly we have REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM showing that Einstein's 1905 light postulate is false. Pentcho Valev pvalev(a)yahoo.com
From: Pentcho Valev on 11 Aug 2010 01:19 The formula: (frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength) has always been a nightmare in Einsteiniana. This formula makes the obvious fact "Both the frequency and the speed of light vary with the speed of the observer", a fact consistent with both Maxwell's theory and Newton's emission theory of light (but not with Divine Albert's Divine Special Relativity), too obvious. That is, even in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world, where any idiocy is welcome, the formula might prove dangerous for Einstein's 1905 false light postulate. So Einsteinians fiercely teach that it is the wavelength that varies with the speed of the observer: 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." 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)." Similarly, when confronted with Hubble redshift, Einsteinians fiercely teach that the allegedly EXPANDING universe somehow "stretches" the wavelength and so the constancy of the speed of light is saved. However one is entitled to assume that this "stretching" is just as silly as the variation of the speed of light with the speed of the observer and advance the following argument: PREMISE 1: The frequency of light coming from distant sources decreases proportionally to the distance (Hubble redshift). PREMISE 2: "Stretching" of the wavelength does not occur. CONCLUSION: In our STATIC universe, the speed of light coming from distant sources decreases proportionally to the distance. Pentcho Valev wrote: PREMISE 1: The wavelength of light cannot vary with the speed of the observer. PREMISE 2: (frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength) CONCLUSION: The speed of light varies with the speed of the observer, that is, Einstein's 1905 light postulate is false. Pentcho Valev pvalev(a)yahoo.com
From: Pentcho Valev on 11 Aug 2010 05:13
Pentcho Valev wrote: > However one is entitled to assume that this "stretching" is just as > silly as the variation of the speed of light with the speed of the > observer and advance the following argument... Mistake: I wrote "speed of light" instead of "wavelength". Here is the corrected text: The formula: (frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength) has always been a nightmare in Einsteiniana. This formula makes the obvious fact "Both the frequency and the speed of light vary with the speed of the observer", a fact consistent with both Maxwell's theory and Newton's emission theory of light (but not with Divine Albert's Divine Special Relativity), too obvious. That is, even in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world, where any idiocy is welcome, the formula might prove dangerous for Einstein's 1905 false light postulate. So Einsteinians fiercely teach that it is the wavelength that varies with the speed of the observer: 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." 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)." Similarly, when confronted with Hubble redshift, Einsteinians fiercely teach that the allegedly EXPANDING universe somehow "stretches" the wavelength and so the constancy of the speed of light is saved. However one is entitled to assume that this "stretching" is just as silly as the variation of the wavelength with the speed of the observer and advance the following argument: PREMISE 1: The frequency of light coming from distant sources decreases proportionally to the distance (Hubble redshift). PREMISE 2: "Stretching" of the wavelength does not occur. CONCLUSION: In our STATIC universe, the speed of light coming from distant sources decreases proportionally to the distance. Pentcho Valev wrote: PREMISE 1: The wavelength of light cannot vary with the speed of the observer. PREMISE 2: (frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength) CONCLUSION: The speed of light varies with the speed of the observer, that is, Einstein's 1905 light postulate is false. Pentcho Valev pvalev(a)yahoo.com |