Search FQXi


If you have an idea for a blog post or a new forum thread, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org, with a summary of the topic and its source (e.g., an academic paper, conference talk, external blog post or news item).
Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the blogger are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Pentcho Valev: on 3/30/12 at 16:07pm UTC, wrote Pseudoheresy and Crimestop in Einsteiniana II Lee Smolin's habit to make...

Pentcho Valev: on 3/30/12 at 13:07pm UTC, wrote Pseudoheresy and Crimestop in Einsteiniana ...

Pentcho Valev: on 3/25/12 at 15:22pm UTC, wrote Bad Ritz, Bad Dingle and Wallace the Unperson ...

Fred Diether: on 3/24/12 at 4:07am UTC, wrote Please learn how to use links to present web links. Click on the "link...

Pentcho Valev: on 3/23/12 at 14:15pm UTC, wrote Bad Ritz and Divine Albert http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/crit/1908l.htm ...

Pentcho Valev: on 3/21/12 at 11:23am UTC, wrote Bad Newton, Good Maxwell and Divine Albert V Bad Newton predicted that the...

Pentcho Valev: on 3/19/12 at 20:36pm UTC, wrote Bad Newton, Good Maxwell and Divine Albert III Einsteiniana: There is no...

Pentcho Valev: on 3/19/12 at 12:07pm UTC, wrote Bad Newton, Good Maxwell and Divine Albert II Bad Newton had said that the...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

John Merryman: "Lorraine, Tom, How would a mathematician create a sphere? Protractor,..." in Why Quantum?

Steve Agnew: "Wow...there is a lot of energy on this thread. Space is a very strange..." in Why Quantum?

Georgina Parry: "Congratulations to the top prize winners and thank you FQXi for the video..." in Your Invitation to FQXi's...

amrit : "Time travel are out of question. One can travel in space only." in Q&A with Paul Davies:...

amrit: "Time has only a mathematical existence." in Q&A with Paul Davies:...

Brendan Foster: "Special Urgent Announcement!!! Make sure to watch live today at..." in How Should Humanity Steer...

Vladimir Rogozhin: "Dear friends, I congratulate all the winners and all the contestants with..." in Your Invitation to FQXi's...

Vladimir Rogozhin: "Dear friends, The helplessness of international organizations in..." in How Should Humanity Steer...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Quantifying Occam
Is the simplest answer always the best? Connecting Medieval monks to computational complexity, using the branch of mathematics known as category theory.

Heart of Darkness
An intrepid physicist attempts to climb into the core of black hole.

Why Quantum?
Entropy could explain why nature chose to play by quantum rules.

Reality's NeverEnding Story
A quantum version of Darwinian natural selection could enable the universe to write itself into being.

The Quantum Dictionary
Mark Van Raamsdonk is re-writing how we define the shape of our universe. Can such translations help to unite quantum theory and gravity?


FQXi BLOGS
August 22, 2014

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: The Whole and Nothing But [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali wrote on Nov. 15, 2011 @ 20:58 GMT
More videos from the Setting Time Aright meeting, this time from the session on Truth. The talks covered both the philosophical question of what scientific “truth” is -- Is science as objective as we might hope? -- and the practical question of how we establish scientific truth in a changing landscape in which computers play as much of a role as -- if not more than -- test tubes, particle accelerators and other lab equipment for testing hypotheses.

First up was FQXi-member and investigative journalist Peter Byrne (who wrote a book about Hugh Everett III) talking about dogma and subjectivity in science, using the example of the resistance to Everett’s Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics that was (is?) largely due to sociological and idealogical reasons:



The video doesn’t show the discussion after Byrne’s talk, but it provoked an indignant reaction from one physicist who asked if Byrne was seriously suggesting that (for instance), despite repeated confirmation of its predictions, the Standard Model is only subjectively true. Michael Reisenberger responded that subjectivity appears in the stories that we use to explain and understand the Standard Model -- and I agree with him. Those of us that spend much of our time writing popular science may be more comfortable with the idea that science involves storytelling, but that’s not just at the popular level. The discussion brings to mind an article that I wrote for Nature last year (“The Large Human Collider”) about social scientists, philosophers and anthropologists who were using CERN as a laboratory for studying the behavior of scientists and the construction of knowledge in large-scale collaborations. In particular, I remember Holger Lyre asking, “Does the Higgs Mechanism Exist?" -- not in the sense of whether or not the LHC will find the Higgs, but in the sense of what actually exists “out there,” if they do find evidence for the Higgs. Quoting from his paper (arXiv:0806.1359v1):

“To be sure, there is nothing wrong with the mathematics of it, but on closer inspection of the “mechanism” it will become clear that a deeper conceptual understanding of the formalism is not at all as obvious and as straightforward as most presentations, notably textbook presentations, of the Higgs mechanism usually pretend. For instance—and as the alert philosophy of physics reader will certainly have noticed already—the status of the symmetries in question, gauge symmetries, is in fact a non-empirical or merely conventional one precisely in the sense that neither global nor local gauge transformations possess any real instantiations (i.e. realizations in the world). Rather their status is comparable to the status of coordinate transformations... How is it then possible to instantiate a mechanism, let alone a dynamics of mass generation, in the breaking of such a kind of symmetry? Suspicions like this should raise philosophical worries about the true ontological and explanatory story behind the Higgs mechanism.”

I usually try and avoid plugging articles I have written on this blog, but since I have already mentioned my LHC article, I’ll bring up another that is relevant to the second talk in the Truth session, also from Nature last year: “Error: Why Scientific Programming Does Not Compute.” That looked at concerns from computer scientists that scientific coding is not as accurate as scientists perhaps believe, and that published results that are based on computational analyses are not reproducible. In the article, I mention recommendations that came out of the Nov 2009 Yale Law School Data and Code Sharing Roundtable in New Haven, Connecticut, organized by Victoria Stodden, urging scientists to provide links to source-code and data used to generate results when publishing. Stodden was at the meeting and spoke at length about these issues in the Truth session, placing them within historical context by looking at how our views of what constitutes scientific truth have changed over the centuries:



Having been vulgar enough to mention two articles that I have written, I may as well throw in a third: “String Theory Finds a Bench Mate”! (Thank you to John Merryman for noticing it, and commenting on it elsewhere in this forum.) It’s about the mathematical connections between string theory and experimental condensed matter physics -- the AdS/CFT conjecture helps predict new states of matter in the lab. I’m bringing this up here as it also touches on the issue of establishing scientific truth. String theory has taken a battering for being divorced from experiment and thus failing to establish its scientific credentials. Although theoretical physics -- more so than other sciences -- sets great store in mathematical elegance, string theorists (at least the ones that I spoke too) were very keen to be able to connect with experiment through this condensed matter link.

But just what do they achieve by doing this? No one on either side claims that the experiments have any bearing on the question of whether string theory provides the correct description of reality at a fundamental level, or whether strings really “exist." But, as John McGreevy told me, if future experiments confirm these string-theory-condensed-matter-predictions, it will help to establish that “strings exist in the Platonic sense.” In the article, I quote Andrew Green saying that string theory may have been misunderstood: "Maybe string theory is not a unique theory of reality, but something deeper — a set of mathematical principles that can be used to relate all physical theories," he says. "Maybe string theory is the new calculus." Any thoughts on this?

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Nov. 16, 2011 @ 05:30 GMT
There is ABSOLUTE truth in science. Of the two statements:

A. The speed of light varies with the speed of the light source.

B. The speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source.

one is ABSOLUTELY true, the other is false. If the false one is chosen as a fundamental postulate, then scientists build a "protective belt" around it:

http://bertie.ccsu.edu/naturesci/PhilSci/Lakatos.html

"Lakatos distinguished between two parts of a scientific theory: its "hard core" which contains its basic assumptions (or axioms, when set out formally and explicitly), and its "protective belt", a surrounding defensive set of "ad hoc" (produced for the occasion) hypotheses. (...) In Lakatos' model, we have to explicitly take into account the "ad hoc hypotheses" which serve as the protective belt. The protective belt serves to deflect "refuting" propositions from the core assumptions..."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Nov. 16, 2011 @ 08:26 GMT
Pentcho, You are wrong.

Given B is not smaller than A. May we conclude that A is larger than B? No. A can be equal to B.

Given B is not smaller than A and not equal to A. May we conclude as did Georg Cantor and Dedekind that A is larger than B? No. As Galileo Galilei's Salviati compellingly argued, A and B can be incomparable.

Your alternatives A and B are obviously not even formally mutually exclusive: "Independent of" is not the logical negation of "vary with". The logical complement of white is not black but not white, including e.g. colored.

What about the speed of light, I have two questions.

- What does the speed refer to?

- May we exchange light by sound?

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Nov. 16, 2011 @ 12:29 GMT
The protective belt ("contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations") referred to by Banesh Hoffmann:

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-H
offmann/dp/0486406768

"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Nov. 16, 2011 @ 15:24 GMT
"There is ABSOLUTE truth in science. Of the two statements:

A. The speed of light varies with the speed of the light source.

B. The speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source.

one is ABSOLUTELY true, the other is false. If the false one is chosen as a fundamental postulate, then scientists build a "protective belt" around it"

In much the same way, I expect, that your own intellectual chastity belt protects your innocence against any knowledge of how science is actually done.

Tom

report post as inappropriate


Eckard Blumschein wrote on Nov. 16, 2011 @ 15:25 GMT
Dear blogger,

Shouldn't we question the belief that there is "nothing wrong with the mathematics of it" as long as "a deeper conceptual understanding of the formalism" is missing? You envisioned string theory possibly the new calculus. While I am not in position to comment on string theory, I am pretty sure that there are persistently ignored deficits concerning the conceptually correct use of calculus, see my essays.

What about the Large Human Collider, I think it is worth mentioning that a considerable part of the many many researchers who worked together and measured a speed of neutrinos in excess of the speed of light refused to be named as authors in the belonging paper.

Perhaps we should blame

- those who earlier failed to clarify in detail in what Nimtz was wrong when he measured propagation of signals with a speed in excess of the speed of light and - those who did obviously not learn from Nimtz' fallacy.

Unfortunately, it is more promising for a scientist's career if he looks for any indication of a match between a theory and a measurement than if he carefully reveals flaws even in more or less established tenets.

Exotic new theories, no matter how exciting they may be, cannot substitute dealing with truly foundational questions. There are still enough open questions. I partially disagree with Pentcho Valev. However, why should we always dream of confirmation to the standard model, Higgs and SUSY by means of LHC?

What about missing source codes that relate to publications, I see this deficit mostly a welcome to the authors possibility to evade criticism. There are exceptions. I recall that I was not in position for two reasons to publish an elegant version in usual style when I mimicked the function of cochlea:

- I counted the time backward from the current now which is uncommon.

- While my program did work, it was clumsy.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Nov. 16, 2011 @ 17:28 GMT
It's interesting that the pattern Peter Byrne lays out and Victoria Stodden provides examples, that of the tendency of science to advance through fits and starts, as ideas are born, compete, grow, stabilize, stagnate and then be supplanted by more nuanced concepts, is such an elemental pattern and process of nature, that a discipline founded on the study of the patterns and processes of nature,...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Nov. 17, 2011 @ 01:19 GMT
If we are really looking to foundational issues, then maybe we should be looking for the heartbeat of the universe, not just its mind, since complexity presumably arises from simplicity.

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Nov. 17, 2011 @ 01:21 GMT
John,

"...since complexity presumably arises from simplicity."

Is this your opinion?

James

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Nov. 17, 2011 @ 01:28 GMT
James,

Since I included the term "presumably" I suppose it would qualify as opinion. And a cautious one at that.

report post as inappropriate


Domenico Oricchio wrote on Nov. 18, 2011 @ 13:59 GMT
How it is possible to observe the Big Bang, or the particle production near the Big Bang?

Why don’t use a spectral image of the space?

I think that is possible to use a single triangular prism, that translate in front of a telescope with low magnification, with a long tube that extract a little section of the refracted rays.

We can search image of the Universe in the not usual spectral line, and it is possible to search in some region that have an unusual emission behavior: if near the Big Bang there are unusual particle, that compose unusual atoms, near great primordial stars, then it is possible to measure unusual spectra emission.

If this work, then it is quickly all the space observation, because it is a surface observation, and it is not like the punctual spectrographic observation.

Saluti

Domenico

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Nov. 19, 2011 @ 02:47 GMT
Hi Dear Zeeya,

Like a quiet dance of harmonization between our two hemispheroids, the objectivity and the subjectivity converge.....

It is a very beautiful article resuming this bridge separting the subjectivity and the objectivity. Like a quiet dance of convergences. You know that I prefer the objectivity. That said , I have studied a little the computing and I understand now the characterization of algorythms.

The computing is indeed a wonderful invention, and of course the methods of calculations evolve and complexificate themselves. Now we must admit that the operators and the methods of distribution of numbers are under specific laws. We must admit that it exists difficulties to calculate several foundamental series, like our quantum uniqueness and its finite number for example. If now some mathematical architectures are created, so if they want to explain the correct serie, so the characterization becomes like an universal road when the finite groups are inserted for example. That's why the objectivity in this road is respected. If we take the subjective analyzes like the higgs for example, so we must admit that the extrapolations are just hypothetical. If the fractal of uniqueness is inserted for the bosons and for the fermions, so we have an important universal link, due to rotating spheres in 3D. In this line of reasoning the higgs is a fractal of the light , but the problem is this external cause of mass linked with the informations. If the higgs are a reality for the informations, so the volumes become a key for all synchronizations. But of course it is a subjective interpretation. I liked your article Zeeya. The strings in fact are perhaps not foundamentals for a quantization of mass but the past works can be harmonized with real convergences.

I see several good convergences, possible with the 3D, but of course the finite groups and the correct domains and series are relevant. The strings can become rotating spheres for the quantization of mass. The incompressibility is important for a pure objective realism .

Best Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Zeeya replied on Nov. 23, 2011 @ 14:30 GMT
Thank you Steve!

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Nov. 24, 2011 @ 00:26 GMT
you are welcome Zeeya :)

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Nov. 20, 2011 @ 19:28 GMT
Note that in 1911 Einstein was forced to introduce gravitational time dilation by the implicit assumption that light stretches between the emitter and the receiver (observer) in the form of a CONTINUOUS FIELD. Without this assumption the gravitational time dilation is just absurd:

http://www.relativitybook.com/resources/Einstein_gravity.htm
l

Albert Einstein 1911: "Nothing compels us to assume that the clocks U in different gravitation potentials must be regarded as going at the same rate. On the contrary, we must certainly define the time in K in such a way that the number of wave crests and troughs between S2 and S1 is independent of the absolute value of time: for the process under observation is by nature a stationary one."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift

"The gravitational weakening of light from high-gravity stars was predicted by John Michell in 1783 and Pierre-Simon Laplace in 1796, using Isaac Newton's concept of light corpuscles (see: emission theory) and who predicted that some stars would have a gravity so strong that light would not be able to escape. The effect of gravity on light was then explored by Johann Georg von Soldner (1801), who calculated the amount of deflection of a light ray by the sun, arriving at the Newtonian answer which is half the value predicted by general relativity. All of this early work assumed that light could slow down and fall, which was inconsistent with the modern understanding of light waves. Once it became accepted that light is an electromagnetic wave, it was clear that the frequency of light should not change from place to place, since waves from a source with a fixed frequency keep the same frequency everywhere. One way around this conclusion would be if time itself was altered - if clocks at different points had different rates. This was precisely Einstein's conclusion in 1911."

In 1954 Einstein realised that, by relying too much on the field concept of light, he had in fact killed physics:

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf/files/975547d7-
2d00-433a-b7e3-4a09145525ca.pdf

Albert Einstein 1954: "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary physics."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Nov. 21, 2011 @ 14:49 GMT
Einsteiniana's Achilles heel:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapter
s/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)."

Of the two statements:

A. The wavelength varies with the speed of the observer.

B. The wavelength does not vary with the speed of the observer.

one is ABSOLUTELY true, the other is false. In a world different from Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world the conclusion:

A false, B true

would be obvious:

http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php

"vO is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + vO. (...) The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time."

http://www.expo-db.be/ExposPrecedentes/Expo/Ondes/fichiers%2
0son/Effet%20Doppler.pdf

"La variation de la fréquence observée lorsqu'il y a mouvement relatif entre la source et l'observateur est appelée effet Doppler. (...) 6. Source immobile - Observateur en mouvement: La distance entre les crêtes, la longueur d'onde lambda ne change pas. Mais la vitesse des crêtes par rapport à l'observateur change !"

In Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world the conclusion:

A true, B false

although ideologically correct, is regarded as too absurd and therefore dangerous. So John Norton's explicit reference to the wavelength variation is an exception. In principle the topic evokes absolute crimestop:

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17

George Orwell: "Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio replied on Dec. 5, 2011 @ 02:57 GMT
Instantaneity is the Achilles' heel of all of physics. So is the failure to fundamentally explain/understand/describe inertial and gravitational equivalency and balancing fundamentally.

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Nov. 23, 2011 @ 13:47 GMT
Superluminal neutrinos and true believers:

http://bigthink.com/ideas/41222

Michio Kaku: "Now, they have done the experiment again, with a beam spread out over 3 billionths of a second and they still find the neutrino beam outracing the light beam. If you aren't aware already -- This is extremely bad news for relativity. According to Einstein, nothing can go faster than light, so a...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Nov. 24, 2011 @ 14:08 GMT
True believer Brian Greene (by definition, a true believer believes that BOTH the Maxwell's theory and the Michelson-Morley experiment gloriously confirmed Divine Albert's Divine Special Relativity):

http://www.amazon.com/Fabric-Cosmos-Space-Textur
e-Reality/dp/0375412883

The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality, Brian Greene, pp. 43-45: "For example, if...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Nov. 25, 2011 @ 14:54 GMT
True believers Jeffrey Forshaw and Gavin Smith have discovered the source of all of the schizophrenic and wonderful physics they teach:

http://www.amazon.com/Dynamics-Relativity-Manchester-Physics
-Jeffrey/dp/0470014601

Dynamics and Relativity, Jeffrey Forshaw, Gavin Smith, pp. 113-114: "Just a few years earlier, Maxwell had written down the equations which define the classical theory of electromagnetism. The equations are beautiful and encode the idea that light is an electromagnetic wave. However the equations taken at face value seem to predict that light travels at a speed c=(...) independently of the motion of either the source which produced it or the observer who measures it. This circumstance seems absurd: for a wave travelling through a medium the speed is indeed independent of the motion of the source but it certainly depends upon the motion of the observer. (...) 2nd postulate: The speed of light in vacuum is the same in all inertial frames. This statement (...) explains in a trivial manner the null result of Michelson-Morley. (...) It constitutes a clean break with classical thinking and it is the source of all of the weird and wonderful physics we shall soon be encountering."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Nov. 25, 2011 @ 18:23 GMT
True believer Brian Cox frantically repeats a silly lie: Faster than light neutrinos threaten cause, effect, future, past, our whole world - only Divine Albert's Divine Theory and especially its sacrosanct, the unworldly speed of light - could save us:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/11/25/cox_neutrinos/

"As long as you travel slower than the speed of light, cause and effect are protected. But if you travel faster than the speed of light, future and past are not protected... do that and you can cause all kinds of trouble," Cox said. "That's why in Einstein's theory speed of light is sacrosanct. That's why physicists care a lot about the speed of light." If Einstein is wrong and speed of light is slower than something else, in this case neutrinos: "It would mean you just have to modify a new structure of time to protect cause and effect."

The lie may be silly but, having been repeated countless times for the last two months, it is now an absolute truth (Goebbels' principle). Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world is well protected for the moment.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Nov. 26, 2011 @ 11:56 GMT
Post dedicated to the thread about quantum correlations, I can not post there !My pc becomes crazzy.

Anomymous, perhaps you are in the team. That is not the problem.

In fact nor Joy or Tom or Ray are true in their works. They just like the play and the game of competitions. Indeed USA and China like copying the real searchers.

I find all that very sad. You can insisty, you can...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Nov. 27, 2011 @ 00:15 GMT
I can understand that in the past several years ago when I knew FQXi,I have been parano after In have shared my theory in transparence. I can understand that I am direct and frank, so probably I have insulted people.But it is just due to my parano.I am sorry if I have touched several people, it was not my aim. I make efforts but I can stop to think like this. My parano does not help me. It is logic when people causes you many probelms in belgium. I had trust in people. But frankly when you are too nice, people eats you. It is bizare in fact. This world is bizare frankly.

You know for me FQXi was very important. I have just the impression that I am not respected. Probably due to my arrogance and this exagerated parano. I am trying to evolve and to be more focus on my economical situation.But it is not easy.I have difficulties to adapt me.In all case I must find a job quickly.It is the life.

I was here on FQXi to share my theory of spherization, these quantum spheres or balls which turn and imply mass and evolution.....and all that considering the cosmological spheres and all in 3D and all inside a beautiful 3D sphere in evolution with a beautiful main central sphere. The 3D is so important,this 3D is very very important for the calculations of proportions.The rotations are proprotional.

If I want calculate the mass of the H for example, I utilise the 3D, if I fractalize this H, it will give a finite serie giving a specific entanglement of spheres. The central sphere is the most important volume.The serie towards our smaller volumes is specific begining from the number 1 the central sphere.So this H is a specific number.

If I take the CH4 now for example, 1 C for 4 H, so we can so insert the 4 series around the serie of the C. Now the real ask is this one,

C AND H have the same serie or have a different serie of uniqueness. If the serie is the same, so you have the universal rule of rotations spinals and orbitals of spherical volumes by synchro and sortings. The fermions and the bosons are easily differenciated by a simple different sense of rotation at 180 degrees.The 4 interactions are unified !

mcosV=constant.

That proves that the mass evolves because it possesses an intrinsic code of evolution, so the mass is what it is because it is like that !

We do niot need extradimensions to see that !

Regards

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Nov. 27, 2011 @ 00:55 GMT
Dear Steve,

I am confused. You think that all we do is copy each other. In contrast, I think that most of the physics community does not take me seriously - my ideas are too radical and too far out of the mainstream. And then Joy and I argue back and forth over something that we more-or-less agree on, like 3-spheres. For that matter, you and Joy are both considering rotations in 3-D. It is funny how we can be so close in our approaches, and yet so far apart.

Please do not compare me to all of USA. Yes - I am an American, born and mostly raised in Florida, but I have virtually no control over what governments and big businesses choose to do - just like you have virtually no control over Belgium, just like the northern European countries have virtually no control over the way that the southern European countries are ruining the value of the Euro.

It is all I can do somedays to hold myself, my family, my family business, and the 24 people that we employ together. Please do not attribute the responsibility of 300 million or 7 billion people to just plain me - I am clearly insufficient - even with the help of all of my friends.

Nor do I have any control over China. I have never even visited that great country - perhaps someday!

Is Joy American? I know that some of his education was in England and America, but I thought that he works at the Perimeter Institute in Canada.

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Nov. 27, 2011 @ 02:04 GMT
Hi Dr Cosmic Ray,

Sorry Ray if I had touched you. I make efforts to be less parano. I have nothing against USA Ray, I love your country, I have always dreamed to be in an university at New York or In California.But unfortunaly the life has chosen a other direction. I love USA Ray but the hour is serious. I spoke generally in fact and not about you, sorry for the confusions, I have sometimes difficulties to explain the things. I respect the fact that you have a enterprize and employments. It is well in fact. But frankly Ray have you seen how the world goes...it is very serious and you as me as all rational people understand that the world must be harmonized quickly.It lacks funds Ray, the economy must be rethought, monney must be inserted. The big powers on Earth, so USA, Europa,China,East,Brasil,India,Africa, must rethink the global economical system quickly !!! If people are nervous everywhere, there are reasons Ray. The world must change for the well of all. It is possible if these countries,these important governments act together with a new system of equilibrium. If not it will be a catastrophe Ray.

ps have you seen my country,yesterday, AA instead of a AA+ for my country in economy like the slovania.We are without government since more than 540 days...incredible no ? it is my country and its surealism.Oh my god.

HOW THE PEOPLE CAN BE WELL AND CREATIVE AND IN PROSPERITY IF THE WORLD IS LIKE THAT.IF ALREADY THE MOST DEVELOPPED COUNTRIES CAN NOT TO SUCCESS. There are many probelms Ray and many parameters to harmonize. The USA has a responsability.If the capitals are a tools, so they must be utilized with rationality and universlity also.

Friendly

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Nov. 26, 2011 @ 13:00 GMT
Eckard,

The speed of sound RELATIVE TO THE OBSERVER does vary with the speed of the observer. According to Newton's emission theory of light, Maxwell's theory, sane scientists in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world, the speed of light RELATIVE TO THE OBSERVER does vary with the speed of the observer as well. Clever Einsteinians know that the Doppler effect (moving observer, stationary source) can have no other explanation so they left Einsteiniana's sinking ship a couple of years ago. Up until recently silly Einsteinians could see no reason why the money-spinner should be abandoned but the OPERA experiment convinced them that they should leave too:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_45GnkHLOfyA/TClEb8j-yAI/AAAAAA
AAA48/Sz82Y_ZwGvs/s1600/Ratosdenavio.png

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Nov. 26, 2011 @ 19:00 GMT
Pentcho,

I wrote "speed of sound re air" as to avoid this mistake. Engineers do never refer the speed of a wave to something else than the medium in which the wave propagates. Just a play with poorly plagiarized hypotheses by Lorentz and Poincaré led to the self-deceptive and unfortunately widespread idea that no medium is required in case of light an the velocity refers instead to the observer.

This idea was welcome because experiments by Michelson and Morley did not find the so called ether wind. And it was a starting point for abundant mathematical self-satisfaction on questionable fundamentals.

The constant speed of air re air does definitely not depend on any observer. Einstein's postulate of a constant velocity of light corresponds to Maxwell's theory of electromagnetic waves. It would be correct re an ether. I do not see Shtyrkov's reasoning objectable.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Nov. 26, 2011 @ 20:25 GMT
Eckard,

The question:

"Does the speed of light RELATIVE TO THE OBSERVER vary with the speed of the obserber?"

is always legitimate and fully compatible with the assumption that, relative to a medium, the speed of light is constant and independent of both source and observer. The answers:

Newton's emission theory: Yes

Maxwell's ether theory: Yes

Special relativity: No

Common sense: Yes:

http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php

"vO is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + vO. (...) The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time."

http://www.phys.uconn.edu/~gibson/Notes/Section6_3/Sec6_3.ht
m

Professor George N. Gibson, University of Connecticut: "However, if either the source or the observer is moving, things change. This is called the Doppler effect. (...) To understand the moving observer, imagine you are in a motorboat on the ocean. If you are not moving, the boat will bob up and down with a certain frequency determined by the ocean waves coming in. However, imagine that you are moving into the waves fairly quickly. You will find that you bob up and down more rapidly, because you hit the crests of the waves sooner than if you were not moving. So, the frequency of the waves appears to be higher to you than if you were not moving. Notice, THE WAVES THEMSELVES HAVE NOT CHANGED, only your experience of them. Nevertheless, you would say that the frequency has increased. Now imagine that you are returning to shore, and so you are traveling in the same direction as the waves. In this case, the waves may still overtake you, but AT A MUCH SLOWER RATE - you will bob up and down more slowly. In fact, if you travel with exactly the same speed as the waves, you will not bob up and down at all. The same thing is true for sound waves, or ANY OTHER WAVES."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Nov. 26, 2011 @ 22:44 GMT
Yes Pentcho,

Shtyrkov did show: "light speed constancy wrt to the observer [is] to be revised".

What I called unbelievable is the obvious fact that a perhaps professional British physicist transferred the believe in the speed constancy of light with respect to the observer as introduced by Einstein, i.e. not wrt the medium on ANY WAVE. This can easily be demonstrated being wrong, e.g. with sound waves.

You quoted Forshaw and Smith having written: "for a wave travelling through a medium the speed is indeed independent of the motion of the source but it certainly depends upon the motion of the observer."

At least in engineering the speed of a sound wave is always understood relative to the medium, never relative to an observer.

"the source of all of the weird and wonderful physics". Correct science is not weird and horror mistakes are not wonderful.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Nov. 27, 2011 @ 14:45 GMT
True believer Brian Greene explains how space and time obey Divine Albert's orders:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/special-relativi
ty-nutshell.html

Brian Greene: "If space and time did not behave this way, the speed of light would not be constant and would depend on the observer's state of motion. But it is constant; space and time do behave this way. Space and time adjust themselves in an exactly compensating manner so that observations of light's speed yield the same result, regardless of the observer's velocity."

The king from The Little Prince is just as powerful as Divine Albert but, unlike Divine Albert, he always gives reasonable orders:

http://www.winglin.net/fanfic/littleprince/chapter_10.shtml

"
Sire--over what do you rule?"

"Over everything," said the king, with magnificent simplicity.

"Over everything?"

The king made a gesture, which took in his planet, the other planets, and all the stars.

"Over all that?" asked the little prince.

"Over all that," the king answered.

For his rule was not only absolute: it was also universal.

....................................

"I should like to see a sunset...Do me that kindness...Order the sun to set..."

"If I ordered a general to fly from one flower to another like a butterfly, or to write a tragic drama, or to change himself into a sea bird, and if the general did not carry out the order that he had received, which one of us would be in the wrong?" the king demanded. "The general, or myself?"

"You," said the little prince firmly.

"Exactly. One must require from each one the duty which each one can perform," the king went on. "Accepted authority rests first of all on reason. If you ordered your people to go and throw themselves into the sea, they would rise up in revolution. I have the right to require obedience because my orders are reasonable."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Dec. 1, 2011 @ 14:07 GMT
The speed of light (relative to the observer) varies with the speed of the observer. This statement contradicts special relativity but is compatible with both Newton's emission theory of light and the ether theory:

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V17NO1PDF/V17N1G
IF.pdf

Doppler Shift Reveals Light Speed Variation, Stephan J. G. Gift: "Specifically we show that the well-established Doppler Shift or frequency change of electromagnetic radiation that occurs for a moving observer is accompanied by a change in wave or light speed relative to the moving observer and that this wave or light speed change (for low-speed observer movement) accords with classical velocity composition."

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3653092

The Mystery of the Einstein-Poincaré Connection, Olivier Darrigol: "It is clear from the context that Poincaré meant here to apply the postulate [of constancy of the speed of light] only in an ether-bound frame, in which case he could indeed state that it had been "accepted by everybody." In 1900 and in later writings he defined the apparent time of a moving observer in such a way that the velocity of light measured by this observer would be the same as if he were at rest (with respect to the ether). This does not mean, however, that he meant the postulate to apply in any inertial frame. From his point of view, the true velocity of light in a moving frame was not a constant but was given by the Galilean law of addition of velocities."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Dec. 4, 2011 @ 09:43 GMT
Pentcho

“The speed of light (relative to the observer) varies with the speed of the observer. This statement contradicts special relativity”.

Incorrect. SR presumes only uniform rectilinear and non-rotary motion. There is no changing velocity. Using a different observer at a different rate of uniform motion to calibrate the speed of light would result in a difference, obviously. But it is not the speed of light that is altering, it’s the simple fact that one has used two different reference points. And the two are not directly comparable, because they are different. In order to compare them, one needs another reference point that encompasses both, ie references both to a new reference point.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Dec. 4, 2011 @ 12:59 GMT
Zombie education in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world (Brian Cox seems to be regarded as the ideal product of this type of education):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HY2R2d6AVPM

"What is redshift? And what is this Doppler effect? What does this tell us about the universe? Quite a lot actually. Enter the realms of Astrophysics as we look at the evidence for an expanding universe and learn how it all began! Future Astronomers start here! In a few years, you could be the next Brian Cox!"

Einsteinians,

This is not funny. The motion of the observer CANNOT alter the wavelength and yet the observer measures a frequency shift as he changes his speed. Why? Does the speed of the waves (relative to the observer) vary with the speed of the observer? If yes, what are the consequences for Divine Albert's Divine Theory? If you were able to explain the problem to children, there would be no next Brian Cox.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio replied on Dec. 5, 2011 @ 02:47 GMT
Gravity and inertia fix intelligible and fundamental distance in/of space consistent with force/energy ultimately. Both have to be at half strength/force in a fundamental unification of physics. This would make space equally (and both) invisible and visible in conjunction with the fundamental demonstation of instantaneity and quantum gravity.

Dreams do all of this, and more. FQXI -- ACTION!

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Dec. 1, 2011 @ 18:13 GMT
Interesting how they keep finding ever more distant and ever older galaxies, yet cannot conceive this is a fundamental problem for the model.

I especially like the first line of the article:

"We've had to go to extremes to get the models to match our observations,"

The cracks in the model keep appearing and they just get another layer of plaster....

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Dec. 1, 2011 @ 18:55 GMT
Halton Arp, the unperson among cosmologists (his "intrinsic redshift" is an unredshift):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mf5y6PJR5lE

Halton Arp Victim Of Rational Scientific Society

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-4

George Orwell: "Withers, however, was already an unperson. He did not exist : he had never existed."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Dec. 1, 2011 @ 19:06 GMT
John,

At least, they are perhaps not yet forced to explain why a found galaxy is older than the Big Bang. Lets wait for results with sub-infrared frequencies. Admittedly tera Hertz images do perhaps not have the required resolution.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Dec. 2, 2011 @ 01:43 GMT
Pentcho,

I suspect Hoyle, Arp, the Burbidges, etc. will be vindicated in our lifetimes.

Eckard,

These galaxies are redshifted off the visible spectrum and seem otherwise normal. The degree of redshift hasn't been completely calculated yet, so it will be interesting to see how they measure up. If redshift is an optical effect, then we can expect to keep finding such galaxies hiding in the background radiation and eventually realize that black body background radiation is itself the residual light of galaxies which has completely fallen off the visible spectrum. The model doesn't have to be twisted to extremes, because it predicts them.

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Dec. 3, 2011 @ 06:30 GMT
Implicit references to Halton Arp's "intrinsic redshift" in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world:

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/09/galaxies-ein
stein-relativity/

"The researchers, led by Radek Wojtak of the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen, set out to test a classic prediction of general relativity: that light will lose energy as it is escaping a gravitational field. The stronger the field, the greater the energy loss suffered by the light. As a result, photons emitted from the center of a galaxy cluster - a massive object containing thousands of galaxies - should lose more energy than photons coming from the edge of the cluster because gravity is strongest in the center."

"Light will lose energy as it is escaping a gravitational field" is a euphemism. In fact, general relativity predicts that light will lose SPEED. The speed of light varies with the gravitational potential, phi, either in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+phi/c^2) given by Newton's emission theory of light or in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+2phi/c^2) given by general relativity:

http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm

"Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German. It predated the full formal development of general relativity by about four years. You can find an English translation of this paper in the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity' beginning on page 99; 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+phi/c^2) where phi is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light co is measured......You can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from the full theory of general relativity in the weak field approximation....For the 1955 results but not in coordinates see page 93, eqn (6.28): c(r)=[1+2phi(r)/c^2]c. Namely the 1955 approximation shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in 1911."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Dec. 4, 2011 @ 01:07 GMT
Pentcho,

If that was the only cause, all galaxies would be equally redshifted. The problem is explaining why there is redshift proportional to intergalactic distances. One observation I would make is that when we treat photons as actual particles, it does require some proportionally expanding distance to create this effect.

On the other hand, if light is a continuous field, expanding out from its source, the further the radius, the greater the volume of space this light must fill and the weaker it becomes. So when we detect that light with a detector made of atomic structure, then the photon is a quanta required to "pop" the electrons in one of those atoms to a higher energy. This then is a sampling of that entire bubble of light.

One way to test this theory, if cosmology wanted to, would be to use two telescopes as far apart as possible and sample the light from the same source, at the exact same time and see if it is "entangled."

If the light travels as distinct particles, then any two photons have been separated since they left the source, millions to billions of years ago and likely came from completely different stars in the same galaxy. On the other hand, if light is the medium and particles and waves are simply manifestations of its measurement, then the light from that distant galaxy would have become entangled in its passage and we should be able to compare these two samples and see how closely they resemble each other.

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Dec. 4, 2011 @ 09:59 GMT
And in Einstein Foundations of GR 1916, sections 21 & 22, you can find a set of equations, one of which, number 74, calculates the curvature effect on a ray of light from the gravitational force.

Paul

PS: yes John, one wonders just what precisely is 'left' after that much travelling, however that occurs. Apart from anything else, what we do receive may have, of itself, been altered because it has been affected by different exansion rates during its travels.

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Dec. 4, 2011 @ 15:22 GMT
Paul,

Yes, light does expand, to fill volume, the greater the radius from its source. The issue is to what is the nature of light, because if it is point particles, it can't expand.

In the Digital vs. Analog contest, I offered an analogy of light as existing continuously vs. being measured discretely, using dripping water:

"A possible analogy would be a running faucet. When it is fully open, the water runs in a

constant stream and as we start to close it, the stream is reduced and becomes smaller

in diameter. Eventually we reach the point there isn’t enough water to maintain the

stream and the faucet is just dripping water. Since it is the surface tension of water, vs.

the force of gravity that determines the size of water droplets, these drops remain the

same size and diameter, as we continue to tighten the faucet, but the reduction in the

flow rate causes the time between each drip to grow longer. If we were to construct a

wave pattern from this process, it would get progressively longer."

So it is that only discrete quanta of light can be detected requires more time for these quanta to build up. Our current theory supposes light can only exist as these irreducible units, so the reason the wave pattern is stretched is like saying the effect of the drips getting further apart is because the faucet is moving away, thus there is more space between each drip.

Even if you require light to exist as fundamental quanta, that doesn't mean they can't be stretched. The problem is assuming they must be inelastic point particles.

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Dec. 14, 2011 @ 14:46 GMT
Einsteinians leave Einsteiniana's sinking ship:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/l720v8hv51p290gt/

Ei
nstein and the Changing Worldviews of Physics, Einstein Studies, 2012, Volume 12, Part 1, 23-37, The Newtonian Theory of Light Propagation, Jean Eisenstaedt

"It is generally thought that light propagation cannot be treated in the framework of Newtonian dynamics. However, at the end of the 18th century and in the context of Newton's Principia, several papers, published and unpublished, offered a new and important corpus that represents a detailed application of Newton's dynamics to light. In it, light was treated in precisely the same way as material particles. This most interesting application - foreshadowed by Newton himself in the Principia - constitutes a relativistic optics of moving bodies, of course based on what we nowadays refer to as Galilean relativity, and offers a most instructive Newtonian analogy to Einsteinian special and general relativity (Eisenstaedt, 2005a; 2005b). These several papers, effects, experiments, and interpretations constitute the Newtonian theory of light propagation. I will argue in this paper, however, that this Newtonian theory of light propagation has deep parallels with some elements of 19th century physics (aberration, the Doppler effect) as well as with an important part of 20th century relativity (the optics of moving bodies, the Michelson experiment, the deflection of light in a gravitational field, black holes, the gravitational Doppler effect)."

Bravo, Jean Eisenstaedt! Just in time:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_45GnkHLOfyA/TClEb8j-yAI/AAAAA
AAAA48/Sz82Y_ZwGvs/s1600/Ratosdenavio.png

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Dec. 15, 2011 @ 20:23 GMT
Misled innocent Einsteinians:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/l720v8hv51p
290gt/

Einstein and the Changing Worldviews of Physics, Einstein Studies, 2012, Volume 12, Part 1, 23-37, The Newtonian Theory of Light Propagation, Jean Eisenstaedt, p. 33: "A relativistic optics of moving bodies: a corpuscle of light is subject to Galilean kinematics, and thus to its principle of relativity as well as to the corresponding theorem of the addition of velocities. The velocity of a light corpuscle is the sum of the velocity of its source, of its emission velocity, and of the velocity of its observer; as a consequence it cannot be constant. Such an optics of moving bodies has quite the same structure as Einstein's special relativity - the Galileo transformations having of course to be replaced by Lorentz transformations."

Jean Eisenstaedt,

"The same structure as Einstein's special relativity" camouflage will not work in the long run. But it could initially mask the fraudulent nature of Einsteiniana - e.g. "We were not lying, we were just misled by the fact that, even though false, special relativity is equivalent to the emission theory". Still I think the camouflage is too naïve - Einsteinians should just put ashes on their heads and disappear in some wormhole.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Dec. 16, 2011 @ 20:57 GMT
The taken-for-granted fact in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/l720v8hv51p290gt/

Einstein and the Changing Worldviews of Physics, Einstein Studies, 2012, Volume 12, Part 1, 23-37, The Newtonian Theory of Light Propagation, Jean Eisenstaedt, p. 34: "Not so surprisingly, neither the possibility of a Newtonian optics of moving bodies nor that of a Newtonian gravitational theory of light has been easily "seen," neither by relativists nor by historians of physics; most probably the "taken-for-granted fact" of the constancy of the velocity of light did not allow thinking in Newtonian terms."

Jean Eisenstaedt,

Which "taken-for-granted fact" did not allow thinking in arithmetic terms in Big Brother's world:

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-7

George Orwell: "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?"

That the velocity of light relative to the observer cannot be constant is just as obvious as 2+2=4:

http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php

"vO is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + vO. (...) The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Dec. 18, 2011 @ 20:24 GMT
The statement that annihilates Einsteiniana:

http://physics.ucsd.edu/students/courses/summer
2011/session1/physics2c/Waves.pdf

"Doppler Shift: Moving Observer: Shift in frequency only, wavelength does not change"

Since "wavelength does not change", then the speed of the light wave (relative to the observer) does, in accordance with the formula:

(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Dec. 19, 2011 @ 03:05 GMT
Hi Kerri,

Wanted to thank you. I can't find the thread now. It was a nice thought. Thanks for sharing it.

......................

The new educational resources here are nice too but I 'm probably going to take a break over Christmas rather than read them all. Thanks.

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Dec. 21, 2011 @ 06:42 GMT
Falling light in a falling elevator:

http://rockpile.phys.virginia.edu/mod04/mod34.pdf

Paul Fendley: "First consider light shined downward in a freely falling elevator of height h. (...) By the time the light hits the bottom of the elevator, it [the elevator] is accelerated to some velocity v. (...) We thus simply have v=gt=gh/c. (...) Now to the earth frame. When the light beam is emitted, the elevator is at rest, so earth and elevator agree the frequency is f. But when it hits the bottom, the elevator is moving at velocity v=gh/c with respect to the earth, so earth and elevator must measure different frequencies. In the elevator, we know that the frequency is still f, so on the ground the frequency

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

On the earth, we interpret this as meaning that not only does gravity bend light, but changes its frequency as well."

This means that, in the earth frame (or in an equivalent accelerating frame, in the absence of a gravitational field), the frequency shift is due to a shift in the speed of light:

c' = c + v = c(1 + gh/c^2)

in accordance with Newton's emission theory of light. Of course, a detailed analysis would show why the frequency shift cannot be due to gravitational time dilation.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Dec. 21, 2011 @ 13:33 GMT
Variable Speed of Light (How Is Relativity Possible?)

If an observer on top of a tower emits light, an observer on the ground measures the speed of the light to be increased:

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/hsr1000/lecturenotes12_02.pd
f

Harvey Reall, University of Cambridge: "...light falls in the gravitational field in exactly the same way as a massive test particle."...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Dec. 22, 2011 @ 11:57 GMT
The fact that the speed of light (relative to the observer/receiver) varies with the speed of the observer/receiver is indispensable for deriving the gravitational redshift so Einsteinians are forced to use it, implicitly of course. The boldest among them believe that the camouflage ("protective belt" in Imre Lakatos' terminology) is so perfect that an explicit hint would do no harm:

http://student.fizika.org/~jsisko/Knjige/Klasicna%20Mehanika
/David%20Morin/CH13.PDF

David Morin p. 3: "However, the light takes a finite time to reach the receiver, and by then the receiver will be moving. We therefore cannot ignore the motion of the rocket when dealing with the receiver. The time it takes the light to reach the receiver is h/c, at which point the receiver has a speed of v=g(h/c).(...) The receiver and this next pulse then travel toward each other at relative speed c+v..."

http://bertie.ccsu.edu/naturesci/PhilSci/Lakatos.html

"Lakatos distinguished between two parts of a scientific theory: its "hard core" which contains its basic assumptions (or axioms, when set out formally and explicitly), and its "protective belt", a surrounding defensive set of "ad hoc" (produced for the occasion) hypotheses. (...) In Lakatos' model, we have to explicitly take into account the "ad hoc hypotheses" which serve as the protective belt. The protective belt serves to deflect "refuting" propositions from the core assumptions..."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Dec. 22, 2011 @ 17:54 GMT
The motion of the observer clearly cannot alter the wavelength of the light wave (and of any other wave). Accordingly, since the frequency does vary with the speed of the observer, the formula:

(frequency) = (speed of the wave)/(wavelength)

tells us that the speed of ANY wave (relative to the observer) varies with the speed of the observer.

Not so, say practitioners of doublethink in Einsteiniana. Forget the wavelength, it does not exist per se, think of the "observer's wavelength-measuring apparatus" which always measures the correct wavelength so that believers can safely sing "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity":

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)."

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/25
239c921a61d6a0

Tom Roberts: "NOTHING that is intrinsic to the light wave "changes". But then, wavelength is NOT an intrinsic property of a light wave. What does change with the observer's velocity is the RELATIONSHIP between the observer's wavelength-measuring apparatus and the light wave, and this causes differently moving observers to MEASURE different wavelengths for the same light wave."

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17

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. (...) 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@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Dec. 23, 2011 @ 12:36 GMT
Pentcho

Wavelength IS found to change, the proposition you suggest is 'obvious' only when employing simplistic notions. It is not falsified in all cases. Consider this;

An observer is in a medium of gas, (at close to index n=1). We may perhaps assume he's on a small planet with a thick atmosphere. An em 'signal' is sent, say from another planets moon or a spacecraft, at c, at a frequency (time gaps) giving an emitted wavelength of 10m. If the observers planet is moving towards the source, then when the signal enters the gaseous medium the measured wavelength in the frame of the planet will be reduced. The frequency will also be found to have consumately increased.

If you research optical science you will find that this is precisely what is found, though few realise the astronomical implications.

As 'c = f x lambda' is always a constant, then of course maintaining c (or c/n) within a moving medium (planet), it is clear that if f changes then wavelength lambda must also change. Of course this was beyond Einstein 100 years ago, but still seems beyond humanity now. Orwell knew why. Do you?

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Dec. 23, 2011 @ 23:07 GMT
As the observer starts moving towards the light source, the frequency he measures increases and if his motion does not alter the wavelength, then the speed of the light wave (relative to him) increases, goodbye Einstein etc. The problem is taboo in Einsteiniana but still there are two exceptions:

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)."

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/25
239c921a61d6a0

Tom Roberts: "NOTHING that is intrinsic to the light wave "changes". But then, wavelength is NOT an intrinsic property of a light wave. What does change with the observer's velocity is the RELATIONSHIP between the observer's wavelength-measuring apparatus and the light wave, and this causes differently moving observers to MEASURE different wavelengths for the same light wave."

Let us assume that Tom Roberts' statement:

"What does change with the observer's velocity is the RELATIONSHIP between the observer's wavelength-measuring apparatus and the light wave"

is correct. Then we consider a stationary observer and a moving source of light. As the light source starts moving towards the observer, the frequency the observer measures increases. Does "the RELATIONSHIP between the observer's wavelength-measuring apparatus and the light wave" change again? If yes, what triggers this change?

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Dec. 24, 2011 @ 14:01 GMT
The scenario:

"Stationary light source; the motion of the observer cannot change the wavelength"

is forbidden in Einsteiniana but the scenario:

"Stationary observer; the motion of the light source CAN change the wavelength"

is not:

http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-Stephen-Hawking/dp/
0553380168

Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 3: "...we must first understand the Doppler effect. As we have seen, visible light consists of fluctuations, or waves, in the electromagnetic field. The wavelength (or distance from one wave crest to the next) of light is extremely small, ranging from four to seven ten-millionths of a meter. The different wavelengths of light are what the human eye sees as different colors, with the longest wavelengths appearing at the red end of the spectrum and the shortest wavelengths at the blue end. Now imagine a source of light at a constant distance from us, such as a star, emitting waves of light at a constant wavelength. Obviously the wavelength of the waves we receive will be the same as the wavelength at which they are emitted (the gravitational field of the galaxy will not be large enough to have a significant effect). Suppose now that the source starts moving toward us. When the source emits the next wave crest it will be nearer to us, so the distance between wave crests will be smaller than when the star was stationary. This means that the wavelength of the waves we receive is shorter than when the star was stationary. Correspondingly, if the source is moving away from us, the wavelength of the waves we receive will be longer. In the case of light, therefore, means that stars moving away from us will have their spectra shifted toward the red end of the spectrum (red-shifted) and those moving toward us will have their spectra blue-shifted."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Dec. 24, 2011 @ 16:47 GMT
Experimental verification of Divine Albert's Divine Theory:

http://www.universetoday.com/2010/03/18/this-is-getti
ng-boring-general-relativity-passes-yet-another-big-test/

"In 1960, GR passed its first big test in a lab, here on Earth; the Pound-Rebka experiment. And over the nine decades since its publication, GR has passed test after test after test, always with flying colors."

The Pound-Rebka experiment showed that the frequency varies with the gravitational potential, phi, in accordance with the equation:

f' = f(1 + phi/c^2)

This means that, given the formula:

(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

either the speed of light varies with the gravitational potential:

c' = c(1 + phi/c^2) (an equation given by Newton's emission theory of light)

or the wavelength varies with the gravitational potential:

L' = L/(1 + phi/c^2) (an equation which, apart from being suspiciously ad hoc, is incompatible with the gravitational time dilation introduced by Einstein in 1911)

Conclusion: The Pound-Rebka experiment UNEQUIVOCALLY confirmed Newton's emission theory of light.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Dec. 26, 2011 @ 15:16 GMT
Another boxer shorts eater:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/23/cr
itical-scientist-higgs-boson?CMP=twt_gu

Philip Ball: "I'd place a tenner (but not a ton) on the Higgs, while offering to join Jim Al-Khalili in eating my shorts if neutrinos defy relativity."

Philip Ball,

I am afraid all Einsteinians will have to eat their shorts even if neutrinos do...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Dec. 24, 2011 @ 16:06 GMT
Pentcho

Q; "Then we consider a stationary observer and a moving source of light. As the light source starts moving towards the observer, the frequency the observer measures increases. Does "the RELATIONSHIP between the observer's wavelength-measuring apparatus and the light wave" change again? If yes, what triggers this change?

No, but the wavelength is still changed from that first emitted.

This is because; If the observer is 'at rest,' then he must be at rest wrt something that is in a different frame to the emitter.

If he is on a planet, say Earth, he is at rest wrt the ionosphere, or the ECRF. Light approaches at c wrt the sun, then hits the ionosphere (Medium) and interacts so when moving through the atmosphere (n=1.0003) does so at c wrt Earth.

In fact if the emitter was moving elsewhere within the galaxy, the wavelength and frequency would have already changed once when moving through the ion shock of the emitter, changing to c wrt the galaxy.

When the implications are considered you should find that this is so simple that, in the immortal words of 'Deep Thought'; "You really ARE not going to like it! Or perhaps you may. It is the discrete field model (DFM), and very Occam.

When the observer moves; Consider all observers wavelength measuring apparatus, which is always preceded by a lens, whether of glass (refractive index n=1.55) or an eyeball (n=1.38). The wavelength is shortened on frame transition along with the frequency change, also maintaining local c. Precisely the 'Local Reality' that Einstein was after, but not by using the simultaneity assumption of SR.

I hope you may accept this as a Christmas present, to make all the fog lift.

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Dec. 26, 2011 @ 08:41 GMT
Peter

The wavelength is not changed from that first emitted. The measurement/ perception of each subsequent wavelength changes. Because the time delay between emission and reception is altering as the distance between emitter and observer (measuring apparatus) alters. The observer is not at rest wrt emitter.

Paul

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Dec. 26, 2011 @ 20:32 GMT
It is SELF-EVIDENT that the motion of the observer CANNOT alter the wavelength of sound waves:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Py5uM4V6uWM&feature=rel
ated

"Doppler Effect Asymmetry"

In a world different from Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world it would be SELF-EVIDENT that the motion of the observer CANNOT alter the wavelength of light waves as well. In Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world it is SELF-EVIDENT that the motion of the observer DOES alter something (it could be the wavelength or "the relationship between the observer's wavelength-measuring apparatus and the light wave" or whatever) so that the speed of light (relative to the observer) can remain unchanged and Einsteiniana's bellicose zombies can fiercely sing "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity" while persecuting heretics.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Dec. 27, 2011 @ 16:07 GMT
Pentcho

Where something 'self evident' relies on assumption, but experiment proves something different, the scientific response is to test the assumption. Others, (like both confirmed relativists AND fanatical dissidents), are too wedded to their beliefs to do this, in which case no weight of contrary evidence will change their minds. Consider; 'Both f and lambda change on frame...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Dec. 27, 2011 @ 20:07 GMT
Doppler Effect Refutes Special Relativity

When it comes to rigorous deduction, even relativists (implicitly) admit that the motion of the observer cannot alter the wavelength of the light wave:

http://members.home.nl/fg.marcelis/reldop.pdf

The observer O receives a light wave from the source S. The wavelength of the emitted wave is Ls. (...) Let Ts be the time in which one wavelength is emitted as measured by a clock that is moving along with S. (...) Now let's suppose that the source is at rest and the observer is moving with velocity v in the direction of the source. Let To be the time in which the observer passes one wavelength, as measured by a clock that is moving along with the observer. In the time To the observer travels a distance v*To to the left and the light wave travels a distance Ls-v*To to the right. The light's distance is also equal to c*To.

So Ls - v*To = c*To.

Or c*Ts = c*To + v*To.

The observed period in case of a moving observer is

To = Ts(c/(c+v))

__________________________________________

[end of quotation]

The last result, combined with the formula

(frequency) = (speed of the light wave)/(wavelength)

entails that the observer measures the frequency to be Fo=Fs(1+v/c) and the speed of the light wave to be c'=c+v.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Dec. 27, 2011 @ 21:45 GMT
Again, rigorous relativistic analysis implies that the speed of light (relative to the observer) varies with the speed of the observer:

http://rockpile.phys.virginia.edu/mod04/mod34.pdf

Paul Fendley: "Now let's see what this does to the frequency of the light. We know that even without special relativity, observers moving at different velocities measure different frequencies. (This is the reason the pitch of an ambulance changes as it passes you it doesn't change if you're on the ambulance). This is called the Doppler shift, and for small relative velocity v it is easy to show that the frequency shifts from f to f(1+v/c) (it goes up heading toward you, down away from you). There are relativistic corrections, but these are negligible here."

By taking into account the formula:

(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

one concludes that the speed of light (relative to the observer) shifts from c to c+v.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate


Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Dec. 27, 2011 @ 02:35 GMT
Breaking news in physics!

Reality is FUNDAMENTALLY both potential and actual in keeping with instantaneity. Dreams are potential and actual in keeping with fundamental instantaneity. (Dreams clearly include bodily experience.) YOU experience YOUR body and occupy and experience your space. The lying body while dreaming is in potential form relative to the dreamer while dreaming. The other observers necessarily experience this lying body/bodily experience (that THEY experience/see) differently or distinctly, and yet as potential AND actual. Importantly, the return to the waking bodily experience (from the dream) is also instantaneous.

This is a revolution in physical understanding.

Dreams are equally, and BOTH, invisible and visible. Accordingly, they are visible to the dreamer having the dream vision; and yet dreams are invisible to others.

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Dec. 29, 2011 @ 13:06 GMT
When the observer starts moving towards the wave source with speed v, both relativists and antirelativists admit that, for ANY wave, the frequency shift he measures obeys the equation f'=f(1+v/c), where f and c are, respectively, the frequency and the speed of the wave the stationary observer measures. The only sane scenario allowing a rigorous derivation of the equation, for ANY wave, is:...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Dec. 30, 2011 @ 12:18 GMT
Note again that scientists have no other way to derive the correct formula for the Doppler frequency shift (moving observer), F'=F(1+V/c), than to admit that the motion of the observer CANNOT alter the wavelength and that the velocity of the wave (relative to the observer) VARIES with the velocity of the observer:

http://web.ntnu.edu.tw/~fangyuhlo/shares/GP/15SS.pdf

Fang-Yuh
Lo, Department of Physics, National Taiwan Normal University:

* What happens when the observer of a wave itself is in motion as well?

* observer moves toward source : frequency becomes higher

* observer moves away from source : frequency becomes lower

* how much higher (lower)?

* wavelength does not change

* change in velocity

Vnew = Vwave ± Vobs

Lwave*Fnew = Vwave ± Vobs

Fnew = ((Vwave ± Vobs)/Vwave)F

______________________________________

[end of quotation]

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Dec. 30, 2011 @ 19:19 GMT
Einsteiniana: Constant Wavelength in a Gravitational Field

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-mc2-Should-Care/dp/03068
17586

Why Does E=mc2?: (And Why Should We Care?), Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw

p. 236: "If the light falls in strict accord with the principle of equivalence, then, as it falls, its energy should increase by exactly the same fraction that it increases for any other thing we could imagine dropping. We need to know what happens to the light as it gains energy. In other words, what can Pound and Rebka expect to see at the bottom of their laboratory when the dropped light arrives? There is only one way for the light to increase its energy. We know that it cannot speed up, because it is already traveling at the universal speed limit, but it can increase its frequency."

On the next page Cox and Forshaw explain that the gravitational time dilation is responsible for the frequency shift. That is, clocks at the bottom of the laboratory run slower so that more wavecrests hit the receiver in a unit time. This is silly camouflage of course - any sane person would at least suspect that, since light's "energy should increase by exactly the same fraction that it increases for any other thing we could imagine dropping", the effect can only be due to acceleration. That is, it is the speed of light that "should increase by exactly the same fraction that it increases for any other thing we could imagine dropping". Yet this is Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world - the more idiotic the camouflage, the more efficient.

The gravitational-time-dilation interpretation of the frequency shift has an implication that clever Einsteinians know about: the emitter and the receiver measure the same wavelength! That is, the camouflage is unable to twist the fact that the wavelength does not vary with the gravitational potential. Silly Einsteinians do not know and do not care about this implication and fiercely teach that the frequency and the wavelength vary while the speed of light gloriously remains constant. Of all clever Einsteinians not one could think of a reason why silly Einsteinians should teach otherwise.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Dec. 30, 2011 @ 19:31 GMT
Pentcho,

I have asked you before for empirical evidence that the speed of light increases as it approaches the Earth. Do you have it or not? Thank you.

James

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Dec. 29, 2011 @ 19:38 GMT
Pentcho

If you prefer to base your theories on beliefs rather than empiricism it is your choice, but you should not then be surprised when you are ignored by both relativists and serious scientists alike.

Wavelength change with receiver motion disproves Einstein's Special Relativity, it does not support it. In fact what it demonstrates is that SR was never required in the fist place.

With the whole of the optical sciences proving every day that an observer is always in a local medium (or his lenses represents a local medium themselves), then you will always be laughed at as foolish, and 'Einstenia' will remain the flawed ruling paradox forever.

Congratulations Pentcho. This is what you are achieving by eschewing science and being as belief led as they.

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Dec. 30, 2011 @ 08:43 GMT
Peter

This does not disprove SR as such, because SR involves no changing motion. Einstein said so.

Your comment about the 'purpose' of SR is correct. Maybe in the material available there is a clue, but why he later designated a set of unreal (special) circumstances as being SR (which is not all that was written in 1905), which serves no purpose, seems peculiar.

Paul

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Dec. 30, 2011 @ 13:37 GMT
Paul

The reason is the very reason for the derivation of GR. It soon became clear that his construction for SR could not accommodate the condition of acceleration required for the 'inertial frame transformation' which 'SR' was originally supposed to be all about. In this event the transformation itself (acceleration) was removed from SR, which was left with only relative 'inertial' (non accelerative) motion to deal with. Yet is still used the Lorentz transformation!! (which is directly equivalent to accelerating between states of motion).

This does of course 'involve' changing motion, but of course can only cope with it via a mathematical formula (originally Fresnels, derived 80 years before for something else) and, as you say, it effectively ended up serving no purpose, although you will be consigned to the crank (in)sanitorium for pointing this out.

It does indeed 'seem peculiar', but he was forced into it, and only let go of the 'ether' frame temporarily when he was forced to, but ended up, just like even Dirac, agreeing that it was logically undeniable.

I did not say that the POSTULATES of SR are disproved, in fact they are proven. In this I agree with you, but the dynamic of local background frames does disproves the rest of SR and the need for it in the first place, or rather combines the remains of it, with the postulates, into a combined GR based unified field theory. This is then unified with QM because it is the quantum mechanism of absorption and atomic scattering which physically produces those local background frames. The 'Local Reality' Einstein sought is thereby achieved. (That is the DFM, and also Dowdyes 're-emission' thesis in a nutshell).

Unfortunately it is initially dynamically complex to understand and the shortcomings of maths wrt motion mean it is unable to find it alone. Also with most dissidents as 'belief' based as ardent relativists it will not even be studied.

Perhaps it's a good thing. Do you believe progress can sometimes itself bring too much discord?

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Dec. 31, 2011 @ 10:12 GMT
Peter

I do not know, but if I get excited enough about the idea, I might try and find out, ie when was SR as a term first mentioned, and why. I am not convinced by your interpretation, because SR did not exist pre-GR. You are assuming that, at least more or less, SR = 1905, when you say: “It soon became clear that his construction for SR could not accommodate the condition of acceleration”. There was no SR, just 1905. Which had length alteration, changing velocity, assumptions about light, mathematics which assumed fixedness, etc.

My ‘reading of the runes’ is that he then fully realised his theory, and instead of just writing: On the electrodynamics of moving bodies: Version 2, he wrote GR and then contrasted that with an unreal set of ‘special’ circumstances which was labelled SR (but was not the whole of 1905) to rationalise some of what he had written about previously. Irrespective of all this, whether what he actually said is either logically, or quantitatively, correct, is an entirely different matter.

In respect of “Yet is still used the Lorentz transformation!!”. His response was: “For the transition from one Galileian system to another, which is moving uniformly with reference to the first, the equations of the Lorentz transformation are valid. These last form the basis for the derivation of deductions from the special theory of relativity, and in themselves, they are nothing more than the expression of the universal validity of the law of transmission of light for all Galileian systems of reference”. Section 26 Sr & GR 1916.

The crux of this is to ignore when he said whatever he said. And to ‘re-assemble’ it on the basis of his own definition as to what constitutes SR & GR. After all, he is really clear about that.

Peter, progress is change. And in general, especially if there is a lot of it, or it is radical, humans have a problem with that. Because whether they realise it or not, what they currently know acquires something of a belief status. Along with more practical considerations around, what has been previously said, ego, job, money, etc. Change represents threats to all/any of these, and while they may expouse the politically correct stance, fundamentally, survival instincts kick in.

Happy New Year (relatively!)

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Dec. 31, 2011 @ 14:53 GMT
Paul

Whatever YOU wish to call his first theory and whenever he later (no secret!) coined the term 'the Special Theory of Relativity', it is now know and referred to as SR so, again only confusion would arise by trying to change that, so I'm afraid I must continue to refer to SR. As you then say; "The crux of this is to ignore when he said whatever he said." so I fail to see the point of your comment on the name, arising only from misinterpretation of my use of SR as having some other meaning! You'll note I put 'SR' in inverted commas, which should have helped stop you diverging from the point. Yes of course the point is how 'correct' it was, my point precisely. But also, he well knew it was not correct or complete. The point is can we now find precisely the incorrect assumption and how to correct it.

The assumption that space does NOT contain the particles we now know it does, (therefore a 'medium), and that light does NOT change speed to the local c on encountering moving fields of these particles (i.e. the ECRF of our ionosphere) was used for SR.

Testing the assumption that what we now find is correct, so Einstein's instinct (small space s in motion within in larger space S etc.) was correct rather than the SR assumption of NO background frame, then we find it all works, including the SR postulates if not the whole simultneity confusion. Job done.

But of course, as you say, we are belief ridden and scared of change. A favourite saying of mine is "The only thing certain in life is change (apart from death and nurses." Unfortunately the only area that seems to be untrue is in academic science, the very area that should define change. Though you yourself have proved that shifting peoples view to get them to them see things from other directions can be next to impossible. Do check out this article; http://dl.dropbox.com/u/5532250/Skeptical%20Intelligencer%20
2011.pdf

How on Earth we change that I really don't know.

best wishes and happy new year.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Jan. 1, 2012 @ 10:24 GMT
Peter

As said in another post, his assumption: " But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it", may well be wrong. That presumption was maintained in GR, wasn't it? We just had the 'extra' effect of light rays curving due to gravity.

Einstein clearly states what constitutes SR, that is all I am saying. It is not a case of what I want to call this or that.

I have already commented on what Einstein was saying, ie he was talking of bodies, space being the consequence, and have spoken on too many occasions about refrence points/frames.

Paul

report post as inappropriate


Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Dec. 30, 2011 @ 20:30 GMT
Instantaneity kills General Relativity. Physics happens IN and with time, in and with the body, and in and with observer and observed. Ultimately, there is no difference between animate and inanimate.

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Jan. 2, 2012 @ 14:24 GMT
Paul

I agree "The idea of motion may not be applied to it" is wrong, because that conception was only forced onto him by the assumption that any motion (or 'immobility' as he initially termed it), or the 'preferred background frame' would have to be 'absolute.'

Now we recognise that we can only actually 'see' light moving through a medium not through a vacuum, and that it always moves at c wrt that local medium, we are no longer hampered by that incorrect assumption that c could only then be one 'absolute' speed wrt the centre of the universe.

I like your; "...he was talking of bodies, space being the consequence." if not entirely accurate in all cases. What I have been trying to say is that when considered with his 1952 conceptualisation; "bodies are not 'IN space' but are spatially extended" then the link between his logical conceptions and what we now know empirically become clear.

The Sun's spatial extension is the heliosphere, Earth's is the plasma(iono/magneto)sphere, The Galaxies is the Halo, etc. etc. Light does c wrt the dominant local 'body' within the local limits of each domain or 'spatial extension'. So we have a model with each is a local 'discrete field.' Frequency/wavelength shift is the evidence of the change from one bodies kinetic domain to another (via absorption and atomic scattering at the new c).

The problem is that the physics of this are so simple that even if Orwell's 'Crimestop' can be overcome and it can be 'seen', then it has to be ignored or the top academics will have to explain why they've failed to see it.

So humankind may be condemned to failure to save embarrassment. Would we call that 'intelligence'?

Happy new century

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Jan. 3, 2012 @ 08:32 GMT
Peter

Not sure about your reason for why he viewed ether the way he (and others) did. I am on 'dodgy ground' here, ie would have to re-check, but I thought it was to do with their conception of what ether and light was, and hence the interrelationship. Where does the concept of 'preferred background frame' come from? And remember that in a closed system you can get an absolute, and we are a closed system. And as you know, I do not agree with your 'c wrt medium' concept, unless you reference everything else to that.

Well, that is what the man said, so I wouldn't want any credit. Of course, it is said against the background of the 'elasticity' of matter. In respect of your other quote, though I'd have to re-check that, I thought his point about "spatially extended" was a reference to the forces that any given body generates. That is, there is the body per se, then the effect it can exert, which gives the body a 'sphere of influence' greater than its actual physical size.

Forget the valuation of the speed. The point is that light starts at the same speed, everywhere, evertime. It then may be affected by various factors that alter that speed (and direction), by amounts which are again constant in all such circumstances. Putting a value on this, is only about establishing differences. That is, the choice of reference point is irrelevant for the purpose of achieving this, so long as once invoked, that reference point is the only one utilised.

No, it's not intelligence, it's survival. I made a comment on this in my post to Ray just now.

Paul

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Jan. 3, 2012 @ 17:16 GMT
Paul

The confusion about light and ether goes back centuries. I've studied science history all my life (it's just called 'Science' in academia) and interesting little jewels still keep emerging. It's complex, and views were as disparate as they are now.

The 'preferred background frame' was the common term for the 'absolute' frame (assuming all ether was fixed wrt the centre of the universe) which had to be removed for the purely relative speed and 'Simultaneity' in 'SR'. (EMB Kinematics). What he did not consider then was the many smaller 'closed systems' in the Universe, such as our 'barycentric' heliosphere, through which light and all other signals goes through at c wrt the Sun (witness Pioneers, Voyagers etc.)

I suggest the only reason you don't agree with 'c wrt medium' (actually c/n) is due to not doing your empirical homework or thinking it through. It always is found at c/n in any medium. As we can only ever 'see' light moving through a vacuum by means of interaction with any medium then the mists should clear.

Q "I thought his point about "spatially extended" (1952) was a reference to the forces that any given body generates." Not at all. Just like his space s moving within S, he is considering kinetics, light speed, and referring to space itself. True, he never quite found the above completed ontology, but only because there was no space travel to prove the diffuse medium there. We do not have the same excuse!

Remember that even a perfect vacuum in Earth is teeming with particles.

And how could they 'measure' particle speed in the vacuum of the LHC pipe if not against the em field, static wrt the pipe and magnets. Logical consistency allows no other ontology. It doesn't matter if it's 'ether' or particle motion as a group, c is c with respect to it alone, nothing else. Here the postulates are proven.

Q; "light starts at the same speed, everywhere, evertime." Agreed. and also 'RE-starts' at the same speed when absorbed and re-emitted by the local particles, which process defines the local c.

Unless of course it is given a docket when it leaves an original emitter, which it has to hand to each particle it meets on the way out (ionosphere) and across space so that it can be re-emitted at different speeds wrt each particle, each of which has to work out how fast the original emitter was going wrt the particle to set the emission speed each time! Wow! You may like that one but no matter how hard I try I really can't accept it.

However, I do have to agree that, if you do believe it as your logic must dictate, then you are in the greater majority against my small minority. Or perhaps you may have now seen a slightly different light?

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Jan. 4, 2012 @ 11:59 GMT
Peter

1 I think my question was really, did Einstein use this phrase ‘preferred background frame.’? And (ie I think these points are related) the only reason I don't agree with 'c wrt medium' is if different reference points are used to establish quantities, and then these are compared. Comparison can only be based on a common reference point.

2 Can you please confirm that...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jan. 6, 2012 @ 21:42 GMT
Doppler Nightmare in Einsteiniana

A source emits waves. A stationary observer measures frequency f, wavelength L, speed of the waves relative to him c. Then the observer moves towards the source with speed v and measures frequency f', wavelength L' and speed c':

f' = f(1 + v/c) for all waves

L' = L for all waves except possibly light

c' = c + v for all waves except possibly light

For light waves: L' = ? c' = ? Einsteinians? Einsteinians:

http://branain.com/consciousness/wp-content/upl
oads/2011/02/head-in-the-sand.jpg

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 7, 2012 @ 11:40 GMT
Pentcho, John, all,

Here I found a page of Fritzius who corrected my last IEEE paper. He provided an original paper by de Sitter which seems to have disproved the emission theory by Ritz for good. If e.g. Marmet is correct and the Michelson experiment meaningless, then I prefer Maxwell's idea of light.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 7, 2012 @ 11:59 GMT
Einsteiniana: "If the frequency varies with the speed of the observer, then the observer measures the wavelength to be variable as well so that the speed of the light wave relative to him can gloriously remain constant and that's it and yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity!"

Einsteinians,

Let us assume that the wavelength of the light wave, unlike the wavelength of any other wave, somehow appears variable to the observer so that the speed of the wave relative to him can gloriously remain constant and that's it and yes you all etc. Then why does this (apparent?) variation of the wavelength of the light wave produce a (measurable) frequency shift identical (f'=f(1+v/c)) to the frequency shift produced by the movement of the observer on any other wave (note that the wavelength of any other wave appears constant to the observer)? Why does this (apparent?) variation of the wavelength of the light wave precisely produce the frequency shift predicted by Newton's emission theory of light? Clever Einsteinians that are still on Einsteiniana's ship know the answer to these questions:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_45GnkHLOfyA/TClEb8j-yAI/
AAAAAAAAA48/Sz82Y_ZwGvs/s1600/Ratosdenavio.png

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 7, 2012 @ 13:49 GMT
Einsteinians admit that the frequency of ANY wave varies as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light:

http://rockpile.phys.virginia.edu/mod04/mod34.pdf

Paul Fendley: "First consider light shined downward in a freely falling elevator of height h. (...) By the time the light hits the bottom of the elevator, it [the elevator] is accelerated to some velocity v. (...) We thus simply have v=gt=gh/c. (...) Now to the earth frame. When the light beam is emitted, the elevator is at rest, so earth and elevator agree the frequency is f. But when it hits the bottom, the elevator is moving at velocity v=gh/c with respect to the earth, so earth and elevator must measure different frequencies. In the elevator, we know that the frequency is still f, so on the ground the frequency f'=f(1+v/c)=f(1+gh/c^2)."

The emission theory also says that, in the above scenario, the wavelength of light remains constant:

L' = L

while the speed of light (relative to the observer) varies in accordance with the equation:

c' = c + v = c(1 + gh/c^2)

Needless to say, Einsteinians fiercely reject the last equations but then the crimestop seizes them. So the questions L'=? c'=? have remained unanswered for a century:

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17

George Orwell: "Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Jan. 7, 2012 @ 18:11 GMT
Pentcho, et al.

I'll leave you with a solution to your Chinese puzzle elevator; In the elevator frame the light does c (c/n if in a medium) at the emitted frequency and wavelength.

If it's a glass wall climbing elevator, then when observed from the Earth frame ( ECRF) 'Proper Time' does not of course apply and the visible evidence of the light having passed (sequential scatterings...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Jan. 8, 2012 @ 12:13 GMT
Peter

Nah, this is not a solution, because:

-reference points must be applied with consistency in order to be valid

-observation is observation, not physical reality

-there is only timing, which is an externally applied measuring system to determine either a) what existed at any given point in time, or b) quantification and comparison of different frequencies of change in reality.

Paul

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jan. 8, 2012 @ 14:40 GMT
The equations f'=f(1+v/c)=f(1+gh/c^2) are fundamental in both Einstein's theory and Newton's emission theory of light:

http://student.fizika.org/~jsisko/Knjige/Klasicna%20Me
hanika/David%20Morin/CH13.PDF

f' = f(1 + v/c) = f(1 + gh/c^2) (13.2)

http://rockpile.phys.virginia.edu/mod04/mod34.pdf

Paul Fendley: "First consider light shined downward in a freely falling elevator of height h. (...) By the time the light hits the bottom of the elevator, it [the elevator] is accelerated to some velocity v. (...) We thus simply have v=gt=gh/c. (...) Now to the earth frame. When the light beam is emitted, the elevator is at rest, so earth and elevator agree the frequency is f. But when it hits the bottom, the elevator is moving at velocity v=gh/c with respect to the earth, so earth and elevator must measure different frequencies. In the elevator, we know that the frequency is still f, so on the ground the frequency f'=f(1+v/c)=f(1+gh/c^2)."

In Newton's emission theory of light it is additionally assumed that the wavelength does not vary with either the speed of the observer or the gravitational potential, and one infers that the speed of light (relative to the observer) varies with both the speed of the observer and the gravitational potential:

c' = c + v = c(1 + gh/c^2)

This is fatal for Einsteiniana of course but the counteraction seems to be easy: The wavelength does vary and that's it and yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Yet clever Einsteinians know that a blunt counteraction of this type, although efficient in other cases, is extremely dangerous in this one. In 1911 Einstein introduced gravitational time dilation based on the implicit assumption that the wavelength does not vary with either the speed of the observer or the gravitational potential. So the counteraction in question could open deep rifts in Divine Albert's Divine Theory. "No counteraction, just silence" is the slogan clever Einsteinians obey.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 9, 2012 @ 16:42 GMT
Einsteiniana explains the gravitational redshift:

http://online.physics.uiuc.edu/courses/phys419/spri
ng10/lectures/Lecture13/L13r.html

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object. Its speed increases as it is falling. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as it falls to earth. Because of...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 10, 2012 @ 13:38 GMT
Physics Education Based on Doublethink

THE TRUTH: Light accelerates in a gravitational field:

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/hsr1000/lecturenotes12
_02.pdf

Harvey Reall, University of Cambridge: "...light falls in the gravitational field in exactly the same way as a massive test particle."

http://membres.multimania.fr/juvastro/calculs/einstein.pdf

"Le principe d'équivalence, un des fondements de base de la relativité générale prédit que dans un champ gravitationnel, la lumière tombe comme tout corps matériel selon l'acceleration de la pesanteur."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNWngpw2vr0

Brian Cox: "Light falls at the same rate in a gravitational field as everything else."

http://www.wfu.edu/~brehme/space.htm

Robert W. Brehme: "Light falls in a gravitational field just as do material objects."

THE LIE ("always one leap ahead of the truth"): Light does not accelerate in a gravitational field:

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-mc2-Should-Care/dp/0306
817586

Why Does E=mc2?: (And Why Should We Care?), Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw, p. 236: "If the light falls in strict accord with the principle of equivalence, then, as it falls, its energy should increase by exactly the same fraction that it increases for any other thing we could imagine dropping. We need to know what happens to the light as it gains energy. In other words, what can Pound and Rebka expect to see at the bottom of their laboratory when the dropped light arrives? There is only one way for the light to increase its energy. We know that it cannot speed up, because it is already traveling at the universal speed limit, but it can increase its frequency."

An education based on doublethink is much more detrimental than an education that just teaches falsehood. Even exceptionally rational minds quickly disintegrate when persistently taught that two and two make five, then four, then five again etc.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 10, 2012 @ 19:00 GMT
Silly Einsteinians are unable to practice doublethink - they just teach lies. The Michelson-Morley experiment has gloriously confirmed the principle of constancy of the speed of light and that's it and yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Students learn the lie by rote, become professors, teach the lie to their students and so the money-spinner works in a continuous mode. Rational minds are paralysed but not irreversibly destroyed. Paradoxically, the irreversible destruction occurs when clever Einsteinians start teaching the truth as part of their doublethink campaign:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/companion.doc

John Norton: "These efforts were long misled by an exaggeration of the importance of one experiment, the Michelson-Morley experiment, even though Einstein later had trouble recalling if he even knew of the experiment prior to his 1905 paper. This one experiment, in isolation, has little force. Its null result happened to be fully compatible with Newton's own emission theory of light. Located in the context of late 19th century electrodynamics when ether-based, wave theories of light predominated, however, it presented a serious problem that exercised the greatest theoretician of the day."

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf

John Norton: "In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues that reveal Einstein's serious consideration of an emission theory of light; and he gave us the crucial insight that Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity. Even today, this point needs emphasis. The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."

Juxtaposing the century of fraudulent literature where the lie is repeated millions of times with John Norton's revelations is fatal for rational minds - they disintegrate irreversibly and succumb to Einsteiniana's bellicose zombies.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jan. 11, 2012 @ 14:44 GMT
The Whole and Nothing But: Insofar as its speed is concerned, light behaves like particles, that is, the speed of light varies with both the speed of the emitter and the gravitational potential just as the speed of cannonballs does. In 1887 (the ad hoc length-contraction hypothesis is not advanced yet) the Michelson-Morley experiment UNEQUIVOCALLY confirmed the variation of the speed of light...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 12, 2012 @ 15:26 GMT
Silly and Clever Einsteinians

Both silly and clever Einsteinians read the following text:

http://physics-animations.com/Physics/English/dopp_txt.htm

Next, we shall consider the case when observer moves and the source of the wave is still. In this case the wavelength is not changed and Doppler frequency shift appears because the velocity w of the wave relatively the observer is changed:

w = u + v (observer is moving toward the stationary source)

w = u - v (observer is moving away from the stationary source)

Because f_dop = w/lambda, initial f = u/lambda_0 and lambda = lambda_0 we find that

f_dop = f(1+v/u) (observer moves toward the stationary source)

f_dop = f(1-v/u) (observer is moving away stationary source)

______________________________________________

[end of quotation]

Silly Einsteinians react immediately:

http://branain.com/consciousness/wp-content/uplo
ads/2011/02/head-in-the-sand.jpg

Clever Einsteinians' reaction is different - full of enthusiasm and hopes for the future they board Einsteiniana's ship for the last time:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_45GnkHLOfyA/TClEb8j-yAI/AAAAA
AAAA48/Sz82Y_ZwGvs/s1600/Ratosdenavio.png

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 13, 2012 @ 08:55 GMT
Another awful text:

http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/roger/PHYS10302/lecture18.pdf

Roger Barlow, Professor of Particle Physics: "The Doppler effect - changes in frequencies when sources or observers are in motion - is familiar to anyone who has stood at the roadside and watched (and listened) to the cars go by. It applies to all types of wave, not just sound. (...) Moving Observer. Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer is moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/(lambda) waves pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/(lambda). So f=(c + v)/(lambda)."

Silly Einsteinians' reaction:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-BTTA0bGiGb0/ThyBqozryjI/A
AAAAAAAAS8/D2kMev2zyjE/s1600/head_in_sand.jpg

Clever Einsteinians' reaction:

http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_5.html

John Baez: "On the one hand we have the Standard Model, which tries to explain all the forces except gravity, and takes quantum mechanics into account. On the other hand we have General Relativity, which tries to explain gravity, and does not take quantum mechanics into account. Both theories seem to be more or less on the right track but until we somehow fit them together, or completely discard one or both, OUR PICTURE OF THE WORLD WILL BE DEEPLY SCHIZOPHRENIC. (...) I realized I didn't have enough confidence in either theory to engage in these heated debates. I also realized that there were other questions to work on: questions where I could actually tell when I was on the right track, questions where researchers cooperate more and fight less. So, I eventually decided to quit working on quantum gravity."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Jan. 13, 2012 @ 09:05 GMT
They can work together as different facets of the Entirety of reality. The solution that permits this also overcomes numerous paradoxes and answers other foundational questions.

attachments: 4_RICP_3D_sized_.pdf

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jan. 13, 2012 @ 15:15 GMT
Einsteinians get informed that, insofar as its speed is concerned, light behaves exactly as cannonballs do:

http://online.physics.uiuc.edu/courses/phys419/spring10/lect
ures/Lecture13/L13r.html

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object. ITS SPEED INCREASES AS IT IS FALLING. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as it falls to earth. Because of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass, WE SHOULD OBSERVE THE SAME EFFECT FOR LIGHT. So lets shine a light beam from the top of a very tall building. If we can measure the frequency shift as the light beam descends the building, we should be able to discern how gravity affects a falling light beam. This was done by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They shone a light from the top of the Jefferson tower at Harvard and measured the frequency shift. The frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the theoretical prediction. Consider a light beam that is travelling away from a gravitational field. Its frequency should shift to lower values. This is known as the gravitational red shift of light."

Silly Einsteinians' reaction:

http://www.theglaringfacts.com/wp-content/uploads/2
011/04/fearappeal.jpg

Clever Einsteinians' reaction:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026831.500-what-make
s-the-universe-tick.html

"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."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 13, 2012 @ 16:03 GMT
Einsteinians find the Doppler formula f'=f(1+v/c) safe and fiercely teach it. However they don't know that the formula presupposes that the speed of light (relative to the observer) varies with the speed of the observer. Fang-Yuh Lo makes this explicit:

http://web.ntnu.edu.tw/~fangyuhlo/shares/GP/15SS.pdf

Fang-Yuh Lo, Department of Physics, National Taiwan Normal University:

* What happens when the observer of a wave itself is in motion as well?

* observer moves toward source : frequency becomes higher

* observer moves away from source : frequency becomes lower

* how much higher (lower)?

* wavelength does not change

* change in velocity

Vnew = Vwave ± Vobs

Lwave*Fnew = Vwave ± Vobs

Fnew = ((Vwave ± Vobs)/Vwave)F

______________________________________

[end of quotation]

Silly Einsteinians look very sad:

http://rtlstatic01.host25.com/repository/images/_variati
ons/4/d/4dad435c97f48cc1a88b4870c053530e_slideshow_bg.jpg?v=
25

Clever Einsteinians try to cheer up silly Einsteinians:

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@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 14, 2012 @ 13:28 GMT
Clever Einsteinians explain to silly Einsteinians that, according to Divine Albert's Divine Theory, the speed of light in a gravitational field is both variable and constant:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLigh
t/speed_of_light.html

Steve Carlip: "Einstein went on to discover a more general theory of relativity which explained gravity in terms of curved...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 15, 2012 @ 15:52 GMT
The Most Difficult Problem in Relativity

http://www.websters-dictionary-online.com/definiti
on/doppler%20effect

In the limit where the speed of the wave is much greater than the relative speed of the source and observer (this is often the case with electromagnetic waves, e.g. light), the relationship between observed frequency f' and emitted frequency f is given by:

Change in frequency delta_f = fv/c = v/lambda

Observed frequency f' = f + fv/c

where f is the transmitted frequency; v is the velocity of the transmitter relative to the receiver in meters per second: positive when moving towards one another, negative when moving away; c is the speed of wave (3~108 m/s for electromagnetic waves travelling in a vacuum); lambda is the wavelength of the transmitted wave subject to change.

_______________________________________

[end of quotation]

For a century Einsteinians have been trying to combine the above formulas with the formula:

f' = c'/lambda

where c' is the speed of the wave relative to the observer. They have had some success with some waves but not with light waves: any time they perform the procedure they obtain c'=c+v which is of course absurd, impossible, disastrous etc. The problem is so difficult that some Einsteinians suspect that it has no solution at all.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jan. 15, 2012 @ 21:46 GMT
The most difficult problem in relativity unsolved at University College London:

http://www.cmmp.ucl.ac.uk/~ahh/teaching/1B24n/lect19.pdf

Tony Harker, University College London: "The Doppler Effect: Moving sources and receivers. The phenomena which occur when a source of sound is in motion are well known. The example which is usually cited is the change in pitch of the engine of a moving vehicle as it approaches. In our treatment we shall not specify the type of wave motion involved, and our results will be applicable to sound and light. (...) Now suppose that the observer is moving with a velocity Vo away from the source. We can tackle this case directly in the same way as we treated the moving source. If the observer moves with a speed Vo away from the source (...), then in a time t the number of waves which reach the observer are those in a distance ct-Vo*t, so the number of waves observed is (ct-Vo*t)/lambda, giving an observed frequency f'=f((c-Vo)/c) when the observer is moving away from the source at a speed Vo."

Einsteinians at UCL combine the formula f'=f((c-Vo)/c) with f'=c'/lambda (c' is the speed of the wave relative to the observer) and obtain c'=c-Vo. "That is correct for sound", they say, "but for light... no, absurd, impossible, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity!"

Eventually Einsteinians come to the coclusion that the problem has no solution at all.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 16, 2012 @ 17:37 GMT
A second unsolvable problem in relativity: Light falls and even accelerates in a gravitational field but its speed does not change, no it doesn't, impossible, absurd, help, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity:

http://sethi.lamar.edu/bahrim-cristian/Courses/PH
YS4480/4480-PROBLEMS/optics-gravit-lens_PPT.pdf

Dr. Cristian Bahrim: "If we accept the principle of equivalence, we must also accept that light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as material bodies. In the laboratory frame the light ray will be accelerated downward with the acceleration of the laboratory. In a uniform gravitational field the light accelerates downward with the local acceleration of gravity."

http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q1635.html

Questi
on: "When a photon falls in a gravitational well, does its speed exceed 'c'?" Dr. Sten Odenwald: "No. The frequency of the light just increases or decreases depending on where you are located. The 'local' speed stays the same as measured by someone falling into the well and watching it pass by. This is the only observer who is in what relativity would consider a 'proper rest frame'."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 16, 2012 @ 23:53 GMT
Pentcho,

Given two orthogonal to each other bundles a) of cannon balls b) of light a crossing, do they influence each other?

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Jan. 17, 2012 @ 04:24 GMT
Pencho,

You said, "Light falls and even accelerates in a gravitational field but its speed does not change, no it doesn't, impossible, absurd, help, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity:"

Gravity can change the k-vector (direction) of a photon. Gravity can also change the frequency of a photon. The velocity of light can change, but not it's speed (unless it passes through an index of refraction not equal to 1). But there are two ways to measure the speed.

1. You measure both the frequency and wavelength at a point, which should multiply to c.

2. You measuer how long it takes the photon to travel over some distance. But GR does funky things to distance and the flow of time.

The invariance of the speed of light is protected by this extremely complicating nature of space-time. Good luck with it.

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jan. 17, 2012 @ 13:28 GMT
The most difficult problem in relativity unsolved at UCSD:

http://physics.ucsd.edu/students/courses/fall2008/managed/ph
ysics11/documents/Lecture5-11.pdf

"Doppler Shift. As long as the velocity of the observer, v, is much smaller than the speed of light, c, (for the case of sound waves much smaller than the speed of sound) then the expression that we derived is a very good approximation. Taking into account v may be in the opposite direction f'=f(1±v/c). At this point you might ask why the shift in direction from the discussion of the equivalence principle. Soon, as we shall see, we can put this together with the equivalence principle to derive the gravitational redshift of light! Gravitational Redshift of Light. In 1960 Pound and Rebka and later, 1965, with an improved version Pound and Snider measured the gravitational redshift of light using the Harvard tower, h=22.6m. From the equivalence principle, at the instant the light is emitted from the transmitter, only a freely falling observer will measure the same value of f that was emitted by the transmitter. But the stationary receiver is not free falling. During the time it takes light to travel to the top of the tower, t=h/c, the receiver is traveling at a velocity, v=gt, away from a free falling receiver. Hence the measured frequency is: f'=f(1-v/c)=f(1-gh/c^2)."

Einsteinians at UCSD combine the equations f'=f(1-v/c)=f(1-gh/c^2) with f'=c'/lambda (c' is the speed of the light relative to the observer/receiver) and obtain c'=c-v=c(1-gh/c^2). "It all looks so logical", they say, "and yet that is... no, impossible, absurd, Newton's emission theory, help, help, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity!"

Eventually Einsteinians come to the coclusion that the problem has no solution at all.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 17, 2012 @ 18:35 GMT
Eckard,

Light behaves like a wave in many respects. But its speed varies with the gravitational potential EXACTLY as the speed of cannonballs does. A second prediction of the emission theory is that the speed of light varies with the speed of the emitter EXACTLY as the speed of cannonballs does (c'=c+v). Essentially, the emission theory does not predict anything else (so I find some of your counterarguments irrelevant).

You wrote: "It is easy to present many many arguments against SR. We have to find the correct alternative and agree on it."

I partially disagree. First Divine Albert's Divine Theory should be officially abolished and its aftermath removed to some extent. Einsteiniana's idiocy is contagious - it affects dissidents as well so those who offer alternatives are often madder than Einsteinians. In the present situation nobody would notice, let alone appreciate, the "correct alternative".

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 18, 2012 @ 10:54 GMT
Professor Carl Mungan is torturing brothers Einsteinians (below lambda, the wavelength symbol Mungan uses, is replaced by L):

http://www.usna.edu/Users/physics/mungan/Scholarship/Dopp
lerEffect.pdf

Carl Mungan: "Special Case II: Moving Observer (with Stationary Source and Medium). Here L'=L because the medium is at rest relative to the source. Absent special relativistic effects, lengths are frame-invariant quantities. Consider the case where the observer moves toward the source. In this case, the observer is rushing head-long into the wavefronts, so that we expect v'>v. In fact, the wave speed is simply increased by the observer speed, as we can see by jumping into the observer's frame of reference. Thus, v'=v+v_o=v(1+v_o/v). Finally, the frequency must increase by exactly the same factor as the wave speed increased, in order to ensure that L'=L -> v'/f'=v/f. Putting everything together, we thus have: OBSERVER MOVING TOWARD SOURCE: L'=L; f'=f(1+v_o/v); v'=v+v_o."

At first the only formula brothers Einsteinians see is v'=v+v_o showing how the speed of the wave (relative to the observer) varies with the speed of the observer. Their initial reaction is: "What? No! Impossible! Absurd! Variable speed of light? Help! Help! Divine Einstein! Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity!"

Then brothers Einsteinians realize that the panic is perhaps not justified - Mungan clearly says "Absent special relativistic effects, lengths are frame-invariant quantities". Now brothers Einsteinians' reaction is: "Yes! Yes! Yes! Oh yes! The moving observer may not be able to change the wavelength outside special relativity but in special relativity he does change it and that's it! Divine Einstein! Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity!"

In the end the feeling is gloomy again. Mungan obtains the correct formula for Doppler shift in light waves, f'=f(1+v_o/v), based on the false assumption that the wavelength does not change. Perhaps the assumption is not quite false? Perhaps the wavelength does not vary with the speed of the observer after all? But then... Brothers Einsteinians feel like Dido after Aeneas left her:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVhvl-0Rm3E&feature=resul
ts_video&playnext=1&list=PL238DDC4254351D96

"Remember me, remember me, but ah! Forget my fate. Remember me, but ah! Forget my fate. Remember me, remember me, but ah! Forget my fate. Remember me, but ah! Forget my fate."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 19, 2012 @ 17:29 GMT
Any evidence is double-edged in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world: Divine Albert's Divine Theory is always gloriously confirmed while the competing theory, after being buried for a few decades, may be partially exculpated (but not resurrected):

https://webspace.utexas.edu/aam829/1/m/Relativity_files/Ritz
Einstein.pdf

Alberto Martinez: "The story of Walter Ritz's foray into electrodynamics is instructive for several reasons. Ritz (figure 1) was not one of the elder physicists who objected to Einstein's theory in favor of more traditional approaches; he was young and regarded his approach to electrodynamics as far more radical than Einstein's. Moreover, at first Ritz received more appreciation and support from the established physics community than Einstein. But Ritz's prolific labors ended abruptly when he died in 1909 at the age of 31. His incomplete theory of electrodynamics was rejected. By 1965, however, all of the empirical evidence that had been taken to refute Ritz's approach had been reexamined and shown to be as compatible with his emission hypothesis as with Einstein's theory."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate


Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Jan. 21, 2012 @ 18:12 GMT
Enjoining and balancing visible and invisible space in conjunction with fundamental instantaneity and fundamental middle [strength] force/energy is the way to fundamentally unify and balance gravity, inertia, and electromagnetism.

Enjoining and balancing visible and invisible space AND the fundamental demonstration/inclusion of instantaneity are fundamental to unification in physics.

Gravity fundamentally enjoins and balances visible and invisible space.

This is why gravity cannot be screened. Let me give you all a clue. Ready?

THE OBSERVER.

report post as inappropriate


Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Jan. 21, 2012 @ 18:23 GMT
Einstein's and Newton's ideas fundamentally neglect the physics of the body/bodily experience and that of contact force/energy in keeping therewith.

Comprehensibility in physics depends upon comprehensiveness in physics. You all wonder why you are so lost, and why I am so far out in front.

Where is the origination AND growth of BOTH the body AND experience from?

Wake up! Gravity cannot be shielded. Gravity allows for (and is necessary for)a fundamental uniformity of force/energy.

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jan. 22, 2012 @ 11:08 GMT
The most glorious confirmation of Divine Albert's Divine Special Relativity:

http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/ugrad/389/muon/muon-rutgers.p
df

"In order to measure the decay constant for a muon at rest (or the corresponding mean-life) one must stop and detect a muon, wait for and detect its decay products, and measure the time interval between capture and decay. Since muons decaying at rest are selected, it is the proper lifetime that is measured. Lifetimes of muons in flight are time-dilated (velocity dependent), and can be much longer..."

A similar wisdom:

In order to measure the lifetime of a driver at rest, one must observe a car coming to a sudden stop into a wall. Lifetimes of moving drivers can be much longer...

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 28, 2012 @ 16:03 GMT
Einstein's Theory: Not Even Absurd

The following quotations show that the implications of Einstein's theory are not just absurd. Rather, they bear all the characteristics of statements like "The greenness of the crocodile exceeds its length":

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/Rec
iprocity/index.html

John Norton: "Relativity theory tells us that a...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 29, 2012 @ 15:43 GMT
Einsteiniana's mavericks: Special relativity's "epistemological and ontological assumptions are now seen to be questionable, unjustified, false, perhaps even illogical":

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Simultaneity-Routledge-Cont
emporary-Philosophy/dp/0415701740

Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity (Routledge Studies in Contemporary Philosophy): "Unfortunately for Einstein's Special Theory, however, its epistemological and ontological assumptions are now seen to be questionable, unjustified, false, perhaps even illogical. (...) In fact, there is a theory that is not merely observationally equivalent to the Special Theory, but also observationally superior to it, namely Lorentzian or neo-Lorentzian theory."

Which one of special relativity's two postulates is "questionable, unjustified, false, perhaps even illogical"? This is a grand secret between Einsteiniana's mavericks but the reference to an "observationally superior" ether theory suggests that the principle of relativity is under attack. And of all the Einsteinians all over the world not one could think of a reason why brothers mavericks should not attack the principle of relativity and revitalize the ether theory. What is absolutely forbidden in Einsteiniana is to attack the principle of constancy of the speed of light:

http://hps.elte.hu/PIRT.Budapest/

Mathematics, Physics and Philosophy In the Interpretations of Relativity Theory, Budapest 4-6 September 2009: "The objective of the conference is to discuss the mathematical, physical and philosophical elements in the physical interpretations of Relativity Theory (PIRT); the physical and philosophical arguments and commitments shaping those interpretations and the various applications of the theory, especially in relativistic cosmology and relativistic quantum theory. The organizing committee is open for discussion of recent advances in investigations of the mathematical, logical and conceptual structure of Relativity Theory, as well as for analysis of the cultural, ideological and philosophical factors that have roles in its evolution and in the development of the modern physical world view determined to a considerable extent by that theory. The conference intends to review the fruitfulness of orthodox Relativity, as developed from the Einstein-Minkowski formulation, and to suggest how history and philosophy of science clarify the relationship between the accepted relativistic formal structure and the various physical interpretations associated with it. While the organizing committee encourages critical investigations and welcomes both Einsteinian and non-Einsteinian (Lorentzian, etc.) approaches, including the recently proposed ether-type theories, it is assumed that the received formal structure of the theory is valid and anti-relativistic papers will not be accepted."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 30, 2012 @ 12:37 GMT
Einstein's Theory: Not Even Absurd

Brian Clegg explains that the 8mm rivet will become as long as necessary so that Einsteiniana's zombies can safely sing "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity":

http://brianclegg.blogspot.com/2011_11_01_archive.html

Brian Clegg: "Here's the scenario. We've got a table with a 10mm deep hole in it. At the bottom of the hole a beetle is happily beetling about, unaware that we are about to fire a rivet into the hole. The good news is that the shank of the rivet, the bit that will go into the hole, is only 8mm long, leaving room for our (rather small) beetle to feel safe and snug. (...) Let's follow the event from the beetle's viewpoint. Down comes the rivet and slams into the table. At the moment before the impact the rivet is still just 5mm long as far as the bug is concerned. But here's the thing. Just because the head of the rivet has come to a sudden stop doesn't mean the whole rivet does. A wave has to pass along the rivet to its end saying 'Stop!' The end of the rivet will just keep on going until this wave, typically travelling at the speed of sound, reaches it. That fast-moving end will crash into the beetle long before the wave arrives. It will then send a counter wave back up the rivet and after a degree of shuddering will eventually settle down as an 8 mm rivet in a 10 mm hole. Too late, though, for that bug. Isn't physics great?"

Is Einstein's theory just absurd? No. Einstein's theory is much more than that.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jan. 31, 2012 @ 12:07 GMT
What can a reasonable person do if the officially accepted theory claims that the greenness of the crocodile exceeds its length? Should one try to prove that the length exceeds the greenness? And if the officially accepted theory claims that both the greenness exceeds the length and the length exceeds the greenness?

According to Einstein's theory, the youthfulness of the travelling twin...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 31, 2012 @ 14:41 GMT
Fermilab physicist, Dr. Ricardo Eusebi, shows how the speed of light (relative to the observer) varies with the speed of the observer and explains that the speed of light (relative to the observer) does not vary with the speed of the observer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EVzUy
E2oD1w

"Fermilab physicist, Dr. Ricardo Eusebi, discusses the Doppler effect and gravitational lensing in respect to Einstein's Theory of General Relativity"

Clearly Einstein's theory is not just absurd. It is much more than that.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Feb. 1, 2012 @ 17:10 GMT
Anonymous Einsteinians enthusiastically prove that, in a gravitational field, the speed of light varies exactly as the speed of cannonballs does, in accordance with Newton's emission theory of light:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixhczNygcWo

"Relativity 3 - gravity and light"

If the speed of light varies with the gravitational potential exactly as the speed of cannonballs does, could that effect be the cause of the gravitational redshift? Of Halton Arp's "intrinsic redshift"? Einsteinians? Einsteinians ready to reply:

http://game2gether.de/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/201
2/01/wall1-1280x1024-1024x819.jpg

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Feb. 3, 2012 @ 16:54 GMT
Einstein's theory is not just absurd. It is much more than that:

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-mc2-Should-Care/dp/03068
17586

Why Does E=mc2?: (And Why Should We Care?), Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw, p. 236: "If the light falls in strict accord with the principle of equivalence, then, as it falls, its energy should increase by exactly the same fraction that it increases for any other thing we could imagine dropping. We need to know what happens to the light as it gains energy. In other words, what can Pound and Rebka expect to see at the bottom of their laboratory when the dropped light arrives? There is only one way for the light to increase its energy. We know that it cannot speed up, because it is already traveling at the universal speed limit, but it can increase its frequency."

http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_sp_gr.html

"Is light affected by gravity? If so, how can the speed of light be constant? Wouldn't the light coming off of the Sun be slower than the light we make here? If not, why doesn't light escape a black hole? Yes, light is affected by gravity, but not in its speed. General Relativity (our best guess as to how the Universe works) gives two effects of gravity on light. It can bend light (which includes effects such as gravitational lensing), and it can change the energy of light. But it changes the energy by shifting the frequency of the light (gravitational redshift) not by changing light speed. Gravity bends light by warping space so that what the light beam sees as "straight" is not straight to an outside observer. The speed of light is still constant." Dr. Eric Christian

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/hsr1000/lecturenote
s12_02.pdf

Harvey Reall, University of Cambridge: "...light falls in the gravitational field in exactly the same way as a massive test particle."

http://sethi.lamar.edu/bahrim-cristian/Courses/PHY
S4480/4480-PROBLEMS/optics-gravit-lens_PPT.pdf

Dr. Cristian Bahrim: "If we accept the principle of equivalence, we must also accept that light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as material bodies."

http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9909014v1.pdf

Steve Carlip: "I will then try to reconcile the results with the occasional (and not completely unreasonable) claim that "objects traveling at the speed of light fall with twice the acceleration of ordinary matter." (...) It is well known that the deflection of light is twice that predicted by Newtonian theory; in this sense, at least, light falls with twice the acceleration of ordinary "slow" matter."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Feb. 1, 2012 @ 22:24 GMT
Simple Violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Misleading education:

http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/py105/Heatengines.htm
l

"A necessary component of a heat engine, then, is that two temperatures are involved. At one stage the system is heated, at another it is cooled. In a full cycle of a heat engine, three things happen: 1. Heat is added. This is at a relatively high temperature, so the heat can be called QH. 2. Some of the energy from that input heat is used to perform work (W). 3. The rest of the heat is removed at a relatively cold temperature (QC)."

The two temperatures are by no means "necessary". Consider the macroscopic contractile polymers designed by Dan Urry which, on adding acid (H+) to the system, contract and lift a weight:

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jp972167t

J. Phys. Chem. B, 1997, 101 (51), pp 11007-11028, Dan W. Urry, "Physical Chemistry of Biological Free Energy Transduction As Demonstrated by Elastic Protein-Based Polymers"

It is easy to show that the four-step isothermal reversible cycle:

1. The polymer is initially stretched. We add H+ to the system.

2. The polymers contracts and lifts a weight.

3. We remove the same amount of H+ from the system.

4. We stretch the polymer and restore the initial state of the system.

VIOLATES THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 1, 2012 @ 23:46 GMT
Hi Pentcho,

lol I am going to test with a stirling engine why the second law is violated ?

the conversion of heat in work or work in heat is rational.

I have difficulties to accept that the second law is violated you know.

Could you develop please ?

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Feb. 2, 2012 @ 14:33 GMT
Urry's polymers are chemical "springs" allowing one to manipulate the force of contraction, thereby shifting the work production in favour of the violation of the second law. You acidify the system (increase the concentration of H+, the hydrogen ion) and the force of contraction increases - the "spring" vigorously contracts and lifts a relatively heavy weight, that is, does a lot of work for you:

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jp972167t

J. Phys. Chem. B, 1997, 101 (51), pp 11007-11028, Dan W. Urry, Physical Chemistry of Biological Free Energy Transduction As Demonstrated by Elastic Protein-Based Polymers, p. 11025, fig. 16A

Then you decrease the H+ concentration, the force of contraction decreases and the work you spend to stretch the "spring" and restore its initial (stretched) state is less than the work gained previously. So the net work gained from contraction and subsequent stretching is positive.

Of course, the above balance does not take into account the work involved in acidifying and then basifying the system. Note that you GAIN work as you acidify the polymer-containing system by transferring H+ to it, isothermally and reversibly, from a reservoir at higher H+ concentration, but then LOSE work as you move the same amount of H+ back to the reservoir. The behaviour of Urry's polymers - they absorb H+ as they stretch and release H+ as they contract - is such that the net work gained from acidifying and subsequently basifying the polymer-containing system is positive again.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 5, 2012 @ 23:17 GMT
Hi Pentcho,

a good picture is always better than words .In all case the proprotions are rational !

Regarsd

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Feb. 4, 2012 @ 16:20 GMT
Richard Feynman did not (want to) understand the Michelson-Morley experiment:

The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Volume 1, Chapter 15-1: "Suppose we are riding in a car that is going at a speed u, and light from the rear is going past the car with speed c. Differentiating the first equation in (15.2) gives dx'/dt=dx/dt-u, which means that according to the Galilean transformation the apparent speed of the passing light, as we measure it in the car, should not be c but should be c-u. For instance, if the car is going 100,000 mi/sec, and the light is going 186,000 mi/sec, then apparently the light going past the car should go 86,000 mi/sec. In any case, by measuring the speed of the light going past the car (if the Galilean transformation is correct for light), one could determine the speed of the car. A number of experiments based on this general idea were performed to determine the velocity of the earth, but they all failed - they gave no velocity at all. We shall discuss one of these experiments [the Michelson-Morley experiment] in detail..."

In 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment UNEQUIVOCALLY confirmed that "if the car is going 100,000 mi/sec, and the light is going 186,000 mi/sec, then apparently the light going past the car should go 86,000 mi/sec":

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/companion.doc

John Norton: "These efforts were long misled by an exaggeration of the importance of one experiment, the Michelson-Morley experiment, even though Einstein later had trouble recalling if he even knew of the experiment prior to his 1905 paper. This one experiment, in isolation, has little force. Its null result happened to be fully compatible with Newton's own emission theory of light. Located in the context of late 19th century electrodynamics when ether-based, wave theories of light predominated, however, it presented a serious problem that exercised the greatest theoretician of the day."

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf

John Norton: "In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues that reveal Einstein's serious consideration of an emission theory of light; and he gave us the crucial insight that Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity. Even today, this point needs emphasis. The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Feb. 4, 2012 @ 17:24 GMT
Einstein's relativity born dead:

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/d
p/0486406768

"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 5, 2012 @ 02:36 GMT
Pentcho Valev did not (want to) understand the Michelson-Morley experiment as did Paul Marmet: in "The Overlooked Phenomena in the Michelson-Morley Experiment".

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Feb. 6, 2012 @ 08:05 GMT
Eckard wrote: "Pentcho Valev did not (want to) understand the Michelson-Morley experiment as did Paul Marmet: in "The Overlooked Phenomena in the Michelson-Morley Experiment"."

Eckard,

Try to find another idol. Paul Marmet was an advocate of Newton's emission theory of light:

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/index.html

Newton Physics, Paul Marmet (1932-2005): "18- The Collapse of the Lorentz Transformation (...) For an observer moving relative to the source, the speed of light is never equal to c, just as in the case using Galilean transformations."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Feb. 6, 2012 @ 14:21 GMT
Simple Violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics II

Carnot dealt with two reversible heat engines which DID NOT INTERACT. In 1850 Clausius used NON-INTERACTING heat engines again:

http://www.mdpi.org/lin/clausius/clausius.htm

"Ueber die bewegende Kraft der Wärme", 1850, Rudolf Clausius: "If we now suppose that there are two substances of which the one can produce more...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Feb. 7, 2012 @ 12:43 GMT
Consider the "somewhat mysterious" pressure emerging between and PUSHING APART the plates of a constant-charge capacitor immersed in water:

http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Electromagnetic-Theory-Mo
dern-Perspective/dp/0763738271

Introduction to Electromagnetic Theory: A Modern Perspective, Tai Chow, p. 267: "Calculations of the forces between charged conductors immersed in a liquid dielectric always show that the force is reduced by the factor K. There is a tendency to think of this as representing a reduction in the electrical forces between the charges on the conductors, as though Coulomb's law for the interaction of two charges should have the dielectric constant included in its denominator. This is incorrect, however. The strictly electric forces between charges on the conductors are not influenced by the presence of the dielectric medium. The medium is polarized, however, and the interaction of the electric field with the polarized medium results in an INCREASED FLUID PRESSURE ON THE CONDUCTORS that reduces the net forces acting on them."

http://www.amazon.com/Classical-Electricity-Magnetism-Second
-Physics/dp/0486439240

Classical Electricity and Magnetism: Second Edition (Dover Books on Physics), Wolfgang K. H. Panofsky, Melba Phillips, p. 114: "This means that if a system maintained at constant charge is totally surrounded by a dielectric liquid all mechanical forces will drop in the ratio 1/k. A factor 1/k is frequently included in the expression for Coulomb's law to indicate this decrease in force. The physical significance of this reduction of force, which is required by energy considerations, is often somewhat mysterious. It is difficult to see on the basis of a field theory why the interaction between two charges should be dependent upon the nature or condition of the intervening material, and therefore the inclusion of an extra factor 1/k in Coulomb's law lacks a physical explanation." p.115: "Therefore the decrease in force... cannot be explained by electrical forces alone." pp.115-116: "Thus the decrease in force that is experienced between two charges when they are immersed in a dielectric liquid can be understood only by considering the effect of the pressure of the liquid on the charges themselves. In accordance with the philosophy of the action-at-a-distance theory, no change in the purely electrical interaction between the charges takes place."

Common sense forces one to conclude that, if the mysterious pressure pushes the plates apart, then it will constantly pump water through a small hole punched in one of the plates. But the constant flow through the hole can in principle be harnessed to do work and so the second law of thermodynamics is violated. Could common sense be misleading in this case?

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate


Sridattadev wrote on Feb. 7, 2012 @ 14:50 GMT
Dear All,

The absolute mathematical truth of zero = i = infinity can be deduced as follows as well.

If 0 x 0 = 0 is true, then 0 / 0 = 0 is also true

If 0 x 1 = 0 is true, then 0 / 0 = 1 is also true

If 0 x 2 = 0 is true, then 0 / 0 = 2 is also true

If 0 x i = 0 is true, then 0 / 0 = i is also true

If 0 x ~ = 0 is true, then 0 / 0 = ~ is also true

It seems that mathematics, the universal language, is also pointing to the absolute truth that 0 = 1 = 2 = i = ~, where "i" can be any number from zero to infinity. We have been looking at only first half of the if true statements in the relative world. As we can see it is not complete with out the then true statements whic are equally true. As all numbers are equal mathematically, so is all creation equal "absolutely".

This proves that 0 = i = ~ or in words "absolutely" nothing = "relatively" everything or everything is absolutely equal. Singularity is not only relative infinity but also absolute equality. There is only one singularity or infinity in the relativistic universe and there is only singularity or equality in the absolute universe and we are all in it.

Love,

Sridattadev.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Feb. 8, 2012 @ 19:27 GMT
I just can’t let this slide by! It was proven by Euler nearly 300 years ago that

-1 = e^{iπ},

so that

ln(-1) = ln(e^{iπ}) = iπ,

or

i = ln(-1}/π.

Writing stuff like 0/0 = 0, 0/0 = 1, 0/0 = 2 is meaningless gibberish, and your proof is an example of garbage in --- garbage out.

LC

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Feb. 8, 2012 @ 21:11 GMT
Dear Sridattadev,

If you are looking for Universal spiritual bliss, you won't find it in physics or mathematics. Things like cosmic consciousness and nirvana (bliss) are beautiful and meaningful facets of reality. But physics and mathematics are the part of reality that is the necessary evil that allow particles and space to behave in a reliable way.

Physics is more evil than money. At least money says, "In God we Trust". Math and physics tell us we are soulless and godless. Be glad that your computer works; use it to find meaningful joy in theology, transcendental meditation or in service to others.

On the gates of Hell there is a very small encryption; it says: 1 plus 1 = 2 is the basis of all evil.

report post as inappropriate

Sridattadev replied on Feb. 9, 2012 @ 22:00 GMT
Dear Friends,

Physics and Math may be able to explain how things work relative to each other but can never understand why they really exist at all absolutely, only spirituality can lead to the ultimate truth of "singularity" or the self or i or god and it all seems like gibberish or irrelevan or infinite in relativity.

Love,

Sridattadev.

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Feb. 9, 2012 @ 12:40 GMT
First glorious confirmation of Divine Albert's Divine Theory:

http://www.jstor.org/pss/4028276

The British Journal for the History of Science (2002), 35 : pp 439-467, Constructing a 'revolution in science': the campaign to promote a favourable reception for the 1919 solar eclipse experiments, ALISTAIR SPONSEL, Abstract: "When the results of experiments performed during the British...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Feb. 9, 2012 @ 16:35 GMT
Einsteiniana's priests inform Einsteiniana's zombies that, in a gravitational field, the speed of light varies exactly as the speed of cannonballs does, in accordance with Newton's emission theory of light:

http://sethi.lamar.edu/bahrim-cristian/Courses/PHYS448
0/4480-PROBLEMS/optics-gravit-lens_PPT.pdf

Dr. Cristian Bahrim: "If we accept the principle of equivalence, we must also accept that light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as material bodies."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixhczNygcWo

"Relativity 3 - gravity and light"

Zombies remain silent for a while but then continue to sing, as fiercely as possible, "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity". However Einsteiniana's priests are merciless - now they inform zombies that light falls with twice the acceleration of cannonballs:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9909014v1.pdf

Steve Carlip: "It is well known that the deflection of light is twice that predicted by Newtonian theory; in this sense, at least, light falls with twice the acceleration of ordinary "slow" matter."

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm

"Specifically, Einstein wrote in 1911 that the speed of light at a place with the gravitational potential phi would be c(1+phi/c^2), where c is the nominal speed of light in the absence of gravity. In geometrical units we define c=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. (...) ...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."

This is unbearable to zombies. They stop singing and disintegrate:

http://rtlstatic01.host25.com/repository/images
/_variations/4/d/4dad435c97f48cc1a88b4870c053530e_slideshow_
bg.jpg?v=25

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Feb. 10, 2012 @ 11:36 GMT
Concentrated lie taught in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world:

http://www.lecture-notes.co.uk/susskind/special-relativity/l
ecture-1/principles-of-special-relativity/

Leonard Susskind: "One of the predictions of Maxwell's equations is that the velocity of electromagnetic waves, or light, is always measured to have the same value, regardless of the frame in which it is measured....

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 10, 2012 @ 13:02 GMT
Pentcho,

Why is virtually nobody willing to either refute or accept Marmet's insight concerning experiments of the M&M type? Well, the consequences might be utterly unwelcome even to you. Perhaps you noticed that Peter tried to compromise with emission theory as well as with Einstein. I contempt dishonest alliances.

Could you please try and provide other arguments against a preferred frame of reference? I will check them against analogous acoustics.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Feb. 14, 2012 @ 11:32 GMT
Einsteiniana: Silly and Clever Educators

Educator Michio Kaku teaches the false principle of constancy of the speed of light in a silly manner (by telling the blatant lie that the principle was inherent in Maxwell's theory) so Educator John Norton mercilessly rebukes him:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/Chasing.pdf

JOHN NORTON: "Finally, in an apparent eagerness to...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Feb. 14, 2012 @ 17:46 GMT
Einsteiniana: Silly and Clever Educators II

Clever educators know and sometimes even hint at the fact that, in 1905, the constancy of the speed of light had no justification:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf

John Norton: "In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues that reveal...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 16, 2012 @ 15:33 GMT
Pentcho,

Yes, "the justification must have come from the Michelson-Morley experiment". That's why I consider Marmet's objection a key: "L'expérience de Michelson et Morley" did NOT "montre" what it was designed for. Its unexpected outcome did not prove anything. Just the expectation was wrong.

Again, you repetitiously quoted the same texts, and you insulted others as "medium-intelligence educators" or "Divine Albert" without at least clarifying wrt what you are speaking of "constant speed of light".

Nonetheless you guided me to efforts by Norton . Thanks.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Feb. 18, 2012 @ 12:16 GMT
Educator Gary Gibbons FRS and Educator Albert Einstein 1911 teach that the youthfulness of the travelling twin has nothing to do with the acceleration she has suffered:

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/research/gr/members/gibbons/gwgPa
rtI_SpecialRelativity2010.pdf

Gary W. Gibbons FRS: "In other words, by simply staying at home Jack has aged relative to Jill. There is no paradox...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Feb. 16, 2012 @ 15:06 GMT
Water Violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics V

http://proceedings.aip.org/resource/2/apcpcs/643/1/430_1

AIP Conf. Proc. 643, pp. 430-435, Pentcho Valev 2002: "...as two vertical constant-charge capacitor plates partially dip into a pool of a liquid dielectric (e.g. water), the liquid between them rises high above the surface of the rest of the liquid in the pool. Evidently, if one punches a macroscopic hole in one of the plates, nothing could prevent the liquid between the plates from leaking out through the hole and generating an eternal waterfall outside the capacitor. This hypothesis has been discussed on many occasions but so far no serious counter-argument has been raised."

Experimental demonstration:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6KAH1JpdPg

"Liquid Dielectric Capacitor"

More argumentation:

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/jk1/lectures/node44.ht
ml

"However, in experiments in which a capacitor is submerged in a dielectric liquid the force per unit area exerted by one plate on another is observed to decrease... (...) This apparent paradox can be explained by taking into account the difference in liquid pressure in the field filled space between the plates and the field free region outside the capacitor."

The pressure difference will constantly pump water through a small hole punched in one of the plates, in violation of the second law of thermodynamics. The hole could be drilled at the level of points 3 and 5 in FIG. 1 below:

http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~yecko/ferro/papers/Fundamen
tals/Brevik_ElecMagnFluids.pdf

Can. J . Phys., 60. 449 (1982), Fluids in electric and magnetic fields: Pressure variation and stability, I. BREVIK: "FIG. 1. Two charged condenser plates partly immersed in a dielectric liquid. (...) FIG. 2. The hydrostatic pressure variation from point 1 to point 5 in Fig. 1."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Feb. 16, 2012 @ 22:49 GMT
Hello Pentcho;

This comment seems inappropriate to post here, and I never saw a response to my replies to 'Water Violates... IV' in the other blog on entropy. As I said there; I think it's misleading to call this experiment a violation of the 2nd Law. You'll have to look there, to see why, as I'm not going to repeat my whole argument.

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Feb. 16, 2012 @ 23:07 GMT
Jonathan,

You wrote there: "...any 'pumping' effect which would be observed is at the expense of the supply voltage, ambient heat of the bath, and so on. My guess is that the 2nd Law is not violated in these experiments, at all."

Yes the pumping effect is at the expense of ambient heat of the bath. See a tentative explanation here:

http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev2.pdf

August 12, 2004, Pentcho Valev: Biased Thermal Motion and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Feb. 16, 2012 @ 23:18 GMT
Hi Pentcho,

Your interest in the second law of thermodynamics appears to me to mean that you would argue that: There are two objects with unequal momentums colliding and that the object with the lower momentum can, under circumstances you are invited to clarify, increase the momentum of the object that already had the higher momentum at the cost for the lower momentum object of lowering its already lower momentum. Is this correct?

James

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Feb. 18, 2012 @ 22:15 GMT
Albert Einstein 1920: The speed of light varies with the gravitational potential but this by no means implies that it varies with the speed of the source or observer:

http://bartleby.net/173/22.html

Albert Einstein: "In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Feb. 20, 2012 @ 18:56 GMT
Einsteiniana: The Great Revolution Is Around the Corner Again

http://www.amazon.com/Trouble-Physics-String-Theory-Sci
ence/dp/0618551050

Lee Smolin, The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next, p. 226: "Einstein's special theory of relativity is based on two postulates: One is the relativity of motion, and the second is the...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Feb. 21, 2012 @ 13:08 GMT
Julian Barbour is merciless:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0211/0211021v2
.pdf

Julian Barbour: "The greatest need is for an EXPLANATION OF THE HUBBLE RED SHIFT THAT DOES NOT RELY ON EXPANSION OF THE UNIVERSE. (...) The estimates of section 7 show how readily the scale-invariant potential energy can increase if the universe becomes more clumpy. Scale-invariant gravity must, in the first place, yield a cause of the Hubble red shift. The only plausible candidate that I can see is this change in the 'potential' of the universe induced by such clumping. It is suitably great and, according to the standard model, has been happening since the end of inflation. Therefore, the conjecture has to be that somehow the change in potential causes the Hubble red shift. This is not inherently impossible. We know that differences in the gravitational potential give rise to a gravitational red shift."

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/cross_fac/ias/earlycareer/even
ts/time/programme/julian_barbour.pdf

Aspects of Time, Julian Barbour, Warwick, August 24th 2011: "Was Spacetime Glorious Historical Accident? (...) ABSOLUTE SIMULTANEITY RESTORED!"

This is unbearable. Einsteiniana's zombies are desperate and disintegrate:

http://rtlstatic01.host25.com/repository/images
/_variations/4/d/4dad435c97f48cc1a88b4870c053530e_slideshow_
bg.jpg?v=25

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Feb. 22, 2012 @ 13:21 GMT
The Great Revolution Is Around the Corner Again II

http://www.youkioske.com/ciencia/discover-march-2012/

DISCOVER March 2012: OVERTURNING EINSTEIN: "From a farmhouse in the English village of South Newington, a gentleman scientist plots to upend Einstein's model of space, time and gravity - and send physics off on a bold new course. (...) Julian Barbour cuts an unlikely figure for a...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


FRANK M DIMEGLIO wrote on Feb. 22, 2012 @ 01:29 GMT
GRAVITY ENJOINS AND BALANCES VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE SPACE. THIS IS WHY GRAVITY CANNOT BE SHIELDED. GRAVITY AND INERTIA, INVISIBLE AND VISIBLE, ARE KEY TO STABILIZED AND FUNDAMENTAL DISTANCE IN/OF SPACE. IF SPACE IS EQUALLY, AND BOTH, INVISIBLE AND VISIBLE, THEN GRAVITY AND INERTIA CAN BE BALANCED AND EQUIVALENT (BOTH AT HALF/MIDDLE STRENGTH FORCE/ENERGY) IN KEEPING WITH BALANCED ATTRACTION AND REPULSION, FUNDAMENTAL FORCE/ENERGY, MIDDLE DISTANCE IN/OF SPACE, AND FUNDAMENTAL INSTANTANEITY. DREAM SPACE IS SEMI-VISIBLE. DREAMS DEMONSTRATE ALL OF THIS IN THIS POST. THE BODY IS FUNDAMENTAL TO PHYSICS.

I HAVE FUNDAMENTALLY AND GENERALLY UNIFIED PHYSICS.

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Feb. 22, 2012 @ 18:55 GMT
Recent glorious confirmation of Divine Albert's Divine Theory:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1109.6571v1.pdf

Nature 477, 567-569 (29 September 2011), Gravitational redshift of galaxies in clusters as predicted by general relativity, Radoslaw Wojtak, Steen H. Hansen, Jens Hjorth: "According to the theory of general relativity, light emitted from galaxies moving in the gravitational potential...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Feb. 23, 2012 @ 12:14 GMT
The Speed of Light Varies With the Speed of the Observer

It is absolutely obvious to the subtlest practitioners of doublethink in Einsteiniana that, as the observer starts moving towards the light source, the wavelength of the light heading towards him automatically decreases so that the speed of the light (relative to him) can gloriously remain constant, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Feb. 23, 2012 @ 18:36 GMT
The Speed of Light Varies With the Speed of the Observer II

http://rockpile.phys.virginia.edu/mod04/mod34.pdf

Paul Fendley: "Now let's see what this does to the frequency of the light. We know that even without special relativity, observers moving at different velocities measure different frequencies. (This is the reason the pitch of an ambulance changes as it passes you it doesn't change if you're on the ambulance). This is called the Doppler shift, and for small relative velocity v it is easy to show that the frequency shifts from f to f(1+v/c) (it goes up heading toward you, down away from you). There are relativistic corrections, but these are negligible here."

Yes it is very easy to show that the frequency shifts from f to f(1+v/c):

http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/roger/PHYS10302/lecture18.pdf

Roger Barlow, Professor of Particle Physics: "The Doppler effect - changes in frequencies when sources or observers are in motion - is familiar to anyone who has stood at the roadside and watched (and listened) to the cars go by. It applies to all types of wave, not just sound. (...) Moving Observer. Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer is moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/(lambda) waves pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/(lambda). So f'=(c+v)/(lambda)."

Clearly the frequency shifts from f to f(1+v/c) because the speed of the light (relative to the observer) shifts from c to c+v. Both shifts can be seen on this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EVzUy
E2oD1w

"Fermilab physicist, Dr. Ricardo Eusebi, discusses the Doppler effect and gravitational lensing in respect to Einstein's Theory of General Relativity"

To Dr. Ricardo Eusebi the speed of light (relative to the observer) appears to be variable but he pronounces it to be constant. So would do any true Einsteinian:

Ignatius of Loyola: "That we may be altogether of the same mind and in conformity with the Church herself, if she shall have defined anything to be black which appears to our eyes to be white, we ought in like manner to pronounce it to be black."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Feb. 23, 2012 @ 19:18 GMT
The Speed of Light Varies With the Speed of the Observer III

Einsteinians look at the speed of the wave (relative to the observer) varying with the speed of the observer and the wavelength remaining the same, but see the wavelength varying with the speed of the observer and the speed remaining the same. A student who wants to become a physicist should learn to obey this white-is-black principle introduced by Ignatius of Loyola:

http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/olcweb/cgi/pluginpop.cgi?it=
swf::800::600::/sites/dl/free/0072482621/78778/Doppler_Nav.s
wf

"INTRODUCTION: Our ears detect changes in the frequency of sound waves due to the Doppler shift, but the waves change in another way, too: in their wavelength. Wavelength and frequency are closely related: if one increases, the other decreases. Their product, the speed of the wave, remains the same. The spaceship in this interactive has an instrument which detects electromagnetic radiation. You can see the wavelength and frequency change as the ship and the source of radiation move through space. EXERCISES: 2. Now click on the "Observer Approaches" button. The ship will start flying towards the source. What is the wavelength of the waves now, as the ship approaches the source? Does the frequency increase or decrease? SOLUTIONS: 2. The wavelength shrinks so that about three waves now fit within the graph. (...) The frequency increases."

Ignatius of Loyola: "That we may be altogether of the same mind and in conformity with the Church herself, if she shall have defined anything to be black which appears to our eyes to be white, we ought in like manner to pronounce it to be black."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Feb. 24, 2012 @ 17:33 GMT
Cannonballs and Photons in a Gravitational Field

The speed of cannonballs shot downwards with initial speed v (relative to the shooter) varies with the gravitational potential (gh) in accordance with the equation v'=v(1+gh/v^2) (it is assumed that v>>(v'-v) and air friction is ignored).

The speed of light emitted downwards with initial speed c (relative to the emitter) varies with the gravitational potential (gh) in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+gh/c^2):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixhczNygcWo

"Relativity 3 - gravity and light"

The identical acceleration suffered by cannonballs and photons gloriously confirms Divine Albert's Divine Theory, yes we all believe in relativity relativity relativity. It also confirms Newton's emission theory of light but in an insignificant and even despicable manner.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Feb. 24, 2012 @ 18:05 GMT
Hi Pentcho,

You did move on temporarily to your concerns abut the second law of thermodynamics. Since your concerns did not involve thermodynamic entropy, I had no questions. I may have missed reading something either about entropy or the speed of light, but, you have returned once again to the 'falling' speed of light. You say:

"The identical acceleration suffered by cannonballs and photons..."

I kind of remember asking for empirical evidence to support this position. Do you know of a measurement of the speed of light that confirms your position? I have my own understanding of this circumstance, but, my interest in this message is about your understanding. Is your position one of a choice of theoretical interpretation or is it based upon empirical evidence that shows that the speed of light increases as it approaches the Earth? I know that the frequency increases. I have read your explanation for why that frequency increases. You use equations for support. Physicists are familiar with those equations, so am I. I am not asking about your interpretation or chosen use for those equations, I am asking if you know of any measurement of the speed of light that confirms that it is increasing as the light approaches the Earth? Thank you.

James

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Feb. 24, 2012 @ 18:42 GMT
a. Photons don't accelerate. Photon energy is measured by frequency, not kinetic energy.

b. A cannonball fired "downward" (I assume you mean toward the center of Earth's mass) substitutes initial velocity for terminal velocity, where gravitational acceleration alone applies.

As you could learn from any high school physics text. Look in the index for "laws of motion."

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Feb. 24, 2012 @ 19:00 GMT
Photons do accelerate in a gravitational field, according to both Newton's emission theory of light and Einstein's general relativity:

http://sethi.lamar.edu/bahrim-cristian/Courses/PH
YS4480/4480-PROBLEMS/optics-gravit-lens_PPT.pdf

Dr. Cristian Bahrim: "If we accept the principle of equivalence, we must also accept that light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as material bodies."

http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9909014v1.pdf

Steve Carlip: "It is well known that the deflection of light is twice that predicted by Newtonian theory; in this sense, at least, light falls with twice the acceleration of ordinary "slow" matter."

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm

"Specifically, Einstein wrote in 1911 that the speed of light at a place with the gravitational potential phi would be c(1+phi/c^2), where c is the nominal speed of light in the absence of gravity. In geometrical units we define c=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. (...) ...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."

http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.ht
m

"Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German. It predated the full formal development of general relativity by about four years. You can find an English translation of this paper in the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity' beginning on page 99; 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+phi/c^2) where phi is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light co is measured......You can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from the full theory of general relativity in the weak field approximation....For the 1955 results but not in coordinates see page 93, eqn (6.28): c(r)=[1+2phi(r)/c^2]c. Namely the 1955 approximation shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in 1911."

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/hsr1000/lecturenotes12
_02.pdf

Harvey Reall, University of Cambridge: "...light falls in the gravitational field in exactly the same way as a massive test particle."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNWngpw2vr0

Brian Cox: "Light falls at the same rate in a gravitational field as everything else."

http://www.wfu.edu/~brehme/space.htm

Robert W. Brehme: "Light falls in a gravitational field just as do material objects."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Feb. 24, 2012 @ 19:11 GMT
Light always travels at the same speed, the speed of light c = 2.998x10^8 m/s. Velocity denotes speed and direction. Gravity can change the direction of light. Since acceleration is defined as a change in velocity with respect to time, then technically light can accelerate. But its speed remains constant.

I hope that helps.

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Feb. 24, 2012 @ 20:10 GMT
Pentcho,

"...In my view, the best empirical evidence that supports the position of Einstein's general relativity and Newton's emission theory of light is the result of the Pound-Rebka experiment. ..."

Ok. The result of that experiment can be and is successfully predicted by treating light as if it accelerates in the same manner as do objects. The Pound-Rebka experiment could be interpreted as support either for or against general relativity. So it is not empirical confirmation of the theory of relativity. The problem remaining is that it also does not measure the speed of light as it approaches the Earth.

I am not challenging your disbelief in the theory of relativity. I am asking if you know of empirical support for your claim that light increases its speed as it approaches the Earth? My point is that theory is not enough. If you wish to fill your messages with exaggerations about the character, intelligence, professionalism, and honesty of physicists who support the theory of relativity, you need to do more.

Your emphasis upon one experiment, that does not involve measuring the speed of light, is not enough to win your case that the speed of light increases as it approaches the Earth.

For other readers: It may be clarifying to some readers for me to explain that I refer to the increase of the speed of light instead of the acceleration of light because acceleration can be either positive or negative. In other words, if the speed of light slows as it approaches the Earth it is undergoing acceleration. Its acceleration is negative.

James

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Feb. 24, 2012 @ 20:45 GMT
James,

You wrote: "Ok. The result of that [Pound-Rebka] experiment can be and is successfully predicted by treating light as if it accelerates in the same manner as do objects."

Note that the experiment UNEQUIVOCALLY PROVES that light accelerates "as do objects", although the frequency and not the speed is measured. If light did not accelerate or accelerated differently, then the probability that the frequency variation will obey the equation f'=f(1+gh/c^2), an equation confirmed by the experiment, would be virtually zero.

You also wrote: "I am asking if you know of empirical support for your claim that light increases its speed as it approaches the Earth?"

No I know of no direct measurement of the light speed variation.

Pentcho

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Feb. 24, 2012 @ 21:15 GMT
Pentcho,

"...Note that the experiment UNEQUIVOCALLY PROVES that light accelerates "as do objects", although the frequency and not the speed is measured. If light did not accelerate or accelerated differently, then the probability that the frequency variation will obey the equation f'=f(1+gh/c^2), an equation confirmed by the experiment, would be virtually zero. ..."

That equation assumes that frequency increases due to falling. It is the equation about kinetic energy increasing that is the basis for assuming that the frequency of light increases. Objects, other than light, do increase their kinetic energies as they fall toward the Earth. What must be shown, before your exagerations regarding character and intelligence, etc. is that the speed of light increases as it approaches the Earth.

You do extensive research about professional opinions and reports to support your view that relativity theory is wrong. However, I suggest that you must research for empirical evidence that the speed of light increases as it approaches the Earth. Before that frequency equation that you site above can be verified, there must be empirical evidence that the speed of light increaes as it approaces the Earth.

The frequency of light might change differently for reasons that are not yet included for consideration. My point is that an experiment that does not measure the speed of light is not evidence about the speed of light. I do not argue in support of relativty theory. I do argue against your claim that "...the experiment UNEQUIVOCALLY PROVES that light accelerates (For other readers, you mean to say that it increases its velocity. I point this out because that is not the exclusive meaning of acceleration which may be either positive or negative.) "as do objects", although the frequency and not the speed is measured.

James

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Feb. 24, 2012 @ 22:43 GMT
The Speed of Light Varies With the Speed of the Observer IV

To Tony Harker, University College London, the speed of the wave (relative to the observer) appears to vary with the speed of the observer and the wavelength to be independent of the movements of the observer. Accordingly, he considers the speed of the wave as varying with the speed of the observer and the wavelength as independent of the movements of the observer, in disobedience to the white-is-black principle advanced by Ignatius of Loyola and adopted in Einsteiniana:

http://www.cmmp.ucl.ac.uk/~ahh/teaching/1B24n/lect19.pdf

Tony Harker, University College London: "The Doppler Effect: Moving sources and receivers. The phenomena which occur when a source of sound is in motion are well known. The example which is usually cited is the change in pitch of the engine of a moving vehicle as it approaches. In our treatment we shall not specify the type of wave motion involved, and our results will be applicable to sound and light. (...) Now suppose that the observer is moving with a velocity Vo away from the source. We can tackle this case directly in the same way as we treated the moving source. If the observer moves with a speed Vo away from the source (...), then in a time t the number of waves which reach the observer are those in a distance ct-Vo*t, so the number of waves observed is (ct-Vo*t)/lambda, giving an observed frequency f'=f((c-Vo)/c) when the observer is moving away from the source at a speed Vo."

Ignatius of Loyola: "That we may be altogether of the same mind and in conformity with the Church herself, if she shall have defined anything to be black which appears to our eyes to be white, we ought in like manner to pronounce it to be black."

Einsteiniana's zombies looking for Tony Harker to have a frank and final conversation with him:

http://game2gether.de/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/
01/wall1-1280x1024-1024x819.jpg

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Feb. 24, 2012 @ 22:57 GMT
Pentcho,

You return to your numbingly repetitive campaign tactic: Attack!, attack! with the same singular argument and ammunition of the wrong kind. Perhaps some anti-relativity 'zombies' will join you. Best wishes to you.

James

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Feb. 25, 2012 @ 11:47 GMT
Yes, and another problem I have with all this, even though I am only operating at a simple level, is apart from what is the phenomenon being referred to as 'light', once whatever it is has interacted with 'something', what has previously happened is irrelevant. Most of what we see is enabled by light (as in the 'effect' on photons that is realisable)that is created by an interaction within the environment of earth. Which includes elementary particles, etc. We are not investigating them with 'light' from outside the earth.

Paul

report post as inappropriate


Tommy Gilbertson wrote on Mar. 6, 2012 @ 06:03 GMT
Hi Eckard: good point you made that "Of course, Pentcho is not in position to indoctrinate anybody by force." Good thing physics dogma can't be forced onto the Community like the Chinese Water Torture (the pain of a thousand successive tiny drops finally breaks your resolve!), or Pentcho would have us all singing the praises of cannonball-photons due to the volume of his comments and constant haranguing lol. His method is like weather erosion in that way.

Anyway, I was wondering if yourself or somebody expert in quantum mechanics could help me with a specific derivation I can't quite figure out?

In The Principles of Quantum Mechanics by PAM Dirac, the generalization of (forgive me this is a little clunky because I don't have latext equations): 1) Sum over all E' of E'ket E'bra equals 1 (where E' are discrete eigenvalues, and the basic kets are normalized). And 2) The integral over all E'' of E''ket dE'' E''bra equals 1 (continuous eigenvalues of E'').

So the equation I can't derive and need help with is the generalization of 1) and 2), i.e.

(Sum over all E' of [E'ket E'bra]) + (The integral over all E'' of [E''ket dE'' E''bra] = 1

However, from 1) and 2), doesn't this equation equal 1+1=1 (an incorrect equation)? Can somebody shed some light on this?

Thanks. One fantastic benefit of this community is there is noplace better to ask this question and get the right answer!

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Tommy Gilbertson replied on Mar. 6, 2012 @ 06:26 GMT
Oh yes, one last thing about this equation, just in case the answer is obvious. Feel free to trounce me if i'm mistaken, but any basic vector can be multiplied by a number and the resulting vector is the same?

So in this case the equation 1+1=1 would be correct, since if we multiply this equation by E' ket we get

E'ket+E'ket=E'ket

or

2E'ket=E'ket

So in this case the generalization I'm asking about would be correct. Am I on the right track here, and/or have I answered my own query?

Please help!!!

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Mar. 6, 2012 @ 07:52 GMT
Tommy,

When you are dealing with only discrete states, the first sum over states is normalized to one. When you are dealing with only continuous states, the integral over all continuous states is normalized. If you have to deal with both discrete and continuous states, then the entire left side is normalized, since the probability of being in one of the possible states (discrete or continuous) is certainty, that is, 1.

report post as inappropriate

Tommy Gilbertson replied on Mar. 7, 2012 @ 00:48 GMT
thx, this answers my question with impressive brevity!

report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.