Prev: Animal Farm by "girdle"
Next: Chapt9; Telescope best distance tool and if Doppler redshift were true, then Great Wall gets fuzzier #90; ATOM TOTALITY
From: John Jones on 16 May 2010 10:48
Pentcho Valev wrote:
> ETHERISTS:
>
> 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
> "The principle underpinning modern physics, which states that the
> speed of light is constant and independent of the motion of the source
> and the observer, is shown to be invalid. (...) 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 return to the Lorentz-Maxwell ether-based theory elucidated by
> Ives and summarized by Erlichson."
>
> EINSTEINIANS:
>
> 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)."
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pvalev(a)yahoo.com
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Animal Farm by "girdle"
Next: Chapt9; Telescope best distance tool and if Doppler redshift were true, then Great Wall gets fuzzier #90; ATOM TOTALITY