 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Logic Forum » EINSTEIN WRONG: THE SHORTEST PROOF... |
|
Page 1 of 3 Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Pentcho Valev... |
 Posted: Wed Sep 09, 2009 7:15 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Premise: The wavelength is determined by the light source and cannot
depend on the movements of the observer.
Premise: (frequency)=(speed of light)/(wavelength)
Conclusion: If the observer is initially at rest relative to but then
starts moving towards the light source, the frequency (Doppler effect)
and THE SPEED OF LIGHT INCREASE.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev at (no spam) yahoo.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| gratis-_+_8_Sum_... |
| Posted: Wed Sep 09, 2009 7:17 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sep 9, 10:15 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote:a94664cae7]Premise: The wavelength is determined by the light source and cannot
depend on the movements of the observer.
Premise: (frequency)=(speed of light)/(wavelength)
Conclusion: If the observer is initially at rest relative to but then
starts moving towards the light source, the frequency (Doppler effect)
and THE SPEED OF LIGHT INCREASE.
Pentcho Valev
pva... at (no spam) yahoo.com
[/quote:a94664cae7]
DO :3 <- '"'"'"'".1$':1~#32768'"~"#1109$#1"'$':1~#128'"~#2735'$
':1~"#546$#0"'"~"#43679"'$':1~"#1365$#0"'"~"#1023$#63"'$
'"'"'".1$#0"~#34959'$':1~"#0$#1170"'"~#11007'$':
1~"#0$#2925"'"~
"#2005$#255"' |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Don Stockbauer... |
| Posted: Wed Sep 09, 2009 10:14 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sep 10, 12:15 am, Pentcho Valev <pva... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote:7dadad4ec9]Premise: The wavelength is determined by the light source and cannot
depend on the movements of the observer.
Premise: (frequency)=(speed of light)/(wavelength)
Conclusion: If the observer is initially at rest relative to but then
starts moving towards the light source, the frequency (Doppler effect)
and THE SPEED OF LIGHT INCREASE.
Pentcho Valev
pva... at (no spam) yahoo.com
[/quote:7dadad4ec9]
The frequency increases, but the speed doesn't.
What is the speed relative to? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Jones... |
| Posted: Thu Sep 10, 2009 3:59 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Pentcho Valev wrote:
[quote:b596ea64f6]Premise: The wavelength is determined by the light source and cannot
depend on the movements of the observer.
Premise: (frequency)=(speed of light)/(wavelength)
Conclusion: If the observer is initially at rest relative to but then
starts moving towards the light source, the frequency (Doppler effect)
and THE SPEED OF LIGHT INCREASE.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev at (no spam) yahoo.com[/quote:b596ea64f6] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jens Stuckelberger... |
| Posted: Thu Sep 10, 2009 6:29 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 22:15:12 -0700, Pentcho Valev wrote:
[quote:4de8ae86ed]Premise: The wavelength is determined by the light source and cannot
depend on the movements of the observer.
Premise: (frequency)=(speed of light)/(wavelength)
Conclusion: If the observer is initially at rest relative to but then
starts moving towards the light source, the frequency (Doppler effect)
and THE SPEED OF LIGHT INCREASE.
[/quote:4de8ae86ed]
How do you manage to be so ignorant? Did you take graduate
courses? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Don Stockbauer... |
| Posted: Thu Sep 10, 2009 10:35 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sep 10, 3:14 am, Don Stockbauer <donstockba... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
[quote:9a64fa086e]On Sep 10, 12:15 am, Pentcho Valev <pva... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
Premise: The wavelength is determined by the light source and cannot
depend on the movements of the observer.
Premise: (frequency)=(speed of light)/(wavelength)
Conclusion: If the observer is initially at rest relative to but then
starts moving towards the light source, the frequency (Doppler effect)
and THE SPEED OF LIGHT INCREASE.
Pentcho Valev
pva... at (no spam) yahoo.com
The frequency increases, but the speed doesn't.
What is the speed relative to?
[/quote:9a64fa086e]
I'm really kind of serious here. I mean, if the SOL is so-and-so, it
must be traveling relative to something which serves as a baseline
for measurement. Was this settled at some point? I mean, like, was
it determined to be the aether? Or maybe it travels relative to all
the mass in the Universe? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Kevin B. Murphy... |
| Posted: Thu Sep 10, 2009 3:46 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 10-Sep-2009, Pentcho Valev <pvalev at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote:8e431c915e]Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com sci.math:1246404 sci.astro:542036
alt.philosophy:704144 sci.logic:266843
Premise: The wavelength is determined by the light source and cannot
depend on the movements of the observer.
Premise: (frequency)=(speed of light)/(wavelength)
Conclusion: If the observer is initially at rest relative to but then
starts moving towards the light source, the frequency (Doppler effect)
and THE SPEED OF LIGHT INCREASE.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev at (no spam) yahoo.com
[/quote:8e431c915e]
I think the premise here that Einstein is using here is that your clock runs
faster if you rush towards the source of the light so there is no change in
frequency (cycles/unit of time).
--
If you are at war, you should be proud... If you are at peace, you should be
ashamed. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Jones... |
| Posted: Thu Sep 10, 2009 4:15 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
John Jones wrote:
[quote:a851ad342d]Pentcho Valev wrote:
Premise: The wavelength is determined by the light source and cannot
depend on the movements of the observer.
Premise: (frequency)=(speed of light)/(wavelength)
Conclusion: If the observer is initially at rest relative to but then
starts moving towards the light source, the frequency (Doppler effect)
and THE SPEED OF LIGHT INCREASE.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev at (no spam) yahoo.com[/quote:a851ad342d] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Don Stockbauer... |
| Posted: Thu Sep 10, 2009 5:36 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sep 10, 8:47 pm, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam... at (no spam) DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
[quote:1b8960ec24]"Don Stockbauer" <donstockba... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:12fa66be-55a3-4544-989a-7acd500f9e2e at (no spam) x6g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 10, 3:14 am, Don Stockbauer <donstockba... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 10, 12:15 am, Pentcho Valev <pva... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
Premise: The wavelength is determined by the light source and cannot
depend on the movements of the observer.
Premise: (frequency)=(speed of light)/(wavelength)
Conclusion: If the observer is initially at rest relative to but then
starts moving towards the light source, the frequency (Doppler effect)
and THE SPEED OF LIGHT INCREASE.
Pentcho Valev
pva... at (no spam) yahoo.com
The frequency increases, but the speed doesn't.
What is the speed relative to?
I'm really kind of serious here. I mean, if the SOL is so-and-so, it
must be traveling relative to something which serves as a baseline
for measurement. Was this settled at some point? I mean, like, was
it determined to be the aether? Or maybe it travels relative to all
the mass in the Universe?
________________________
If you are serious, then here is how it works. The speed of light is a
constant, irrespective of which inertial frame it is measured in. You can
use any inertial reference frame as the "something" which the speed of light
is measured against. The aether was originally intended to be that
"something" against which absolute speed was measured; SR rendered the
aether worthless for this purpose.
[/quote:1b8960ec24]
Thank you. That does seem familiar now that you mention it. Haven't
thought too much about SR in a long time. Been off in the cybernetic
world. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter Webb... |
| Posted: Thu Sep 10, 2009 7:47 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Don Stockbauer" <donstockbauer at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:12fa66be-55a3-4544-989a-7acd500f9e2e at (no spam) x6g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 10, 3:14 am, Don Stockbauer <donstockba... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
[quote:b49c1309ed]On Sep 10, 12:15 am, Pentcho Valev <pva... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
Premise: The wavelength is determined by the light source and cannot
depend on the movements of the observer.
Premise: (frequency)=(speed of light)/(wavelength)
Conclusion: If the observer is initially at rest relative to but then
starts moving towards the light source, the frequency (Doppler effect)
and THE SPEED OF LIGHT INCREASE.
Pentcho Valev
pva... at (no spam) yahoo.com
The frequency increases, but the speed doesn't.
What is the speed relative to?
[/quote:b49c1309ed]
I'm really kind of serious here. I mean, if the SOL is so-and-so, it
must be traveling relative to something which serves as a baseline
for measurement. Was this settled at some point? I mean, like, was
it determined to be the aether? Or maybe it travels relative to all
the mass in the Universe?
________________________
If you are serious, then here is how it works. The speed of light is a
constant, irrespective of which inertial frame it is measured in. You can
use any inertial reference frame as the "something" which the speed of light
is measured against. The aether was originally intended to be that
"something" against which absolute speed was measured; SR rendered the
aether worthless for this purpose. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter Webb... |
| Posted: Thu Sep 10, 2009 7:50 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Kevin B. Murphy" <kmurphy004 at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote in message
news:gJOdnSL63uon7jTXnZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d at (no spam) giganews.com...
[quote:d3d5ef3dd7]
On 10-Sep-2009, Pentcho Valev <pvalev at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com sci.math:1246404 sci.astro:542036
alt.philosophy:704144 sci.logic:266843
Premise: The wavelength is determined by the light source and cannot
depend on the movements of the observer.
Premise: (frequency)=(speed of light)/(wavelength)
Conclusion: If the observer is initially at rest relative to but then
starts moving towards the light source, the frequency (Doppler effect)
and THE SPEED OF LIGHT INCREASE.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev at (no spam) yahoo.com
I think the premise here that Einstein is using here is that your clock
runs
faster if you rush towards the source of the light so there is no change
in
frequency (cycles/unit of time).
[/quote:d3d5ef3dd7]
No, in SR (and GR for that matter) if you move towards a light source, it
appears to have (and in fact does have) a higher frequency. Hence the red
shift for receding galaxies.
With you as a teacher, and Valev as a student, I don't think a lot will be
learned. Good though your intentions probably are.
[quote:d3d5ef3dd7]--
If you are at war, you should be proud... If you are at peace, you should
be
ashamed.
[/quote:d3d5ef3dd7] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| BradGuth... |
| Posted: Fri Sep 11, 2009 2:48 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sep 9, 10:15 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote:563994e0f6]Premise: The wavelength is determined by the light source and cannot
depend on the movements of the observer.
Premise: (frequency)=(speed of light)/(wavelength)
Conclusion: If the observer is initially at rest relative to but then
starts moving towards the light source, the frequency (Doppler effect)
and THE SPEED OF LIGHT INCREASE.
Pentcho Valev
pva... at (no spam) yahoo.com
[/quote:563994e0f6]
We're also headed towards The Great Attractor at <750 km/s (at times a
little faster when you toss in a little retrograde).
Ask these Einstein jokers; Where's the local SR distortions?
~ BG |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Don Stockbauer... |
| Posted: Fri Sep 11, 2009 12:40 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sep 11, 5:10 pm, Doug Freyburger <dfrey... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote:b456267df7]Peter Webb wrote:
If you are serious, then here is how it works. The speed of light is a
constant, irrespective of which inertial frame it is measured in. You
can use any inertial reference frame as the "something" which the speed
of light is measured against.
It was the 1970s when I had to learn the of how special
relativity works. Maxwell's equations, magnetism being
the Lorenz contraction of moving charge and such. I am
very out of practice in recent decades.
> The aether was originally intended to be
that "something" against which absolute speed was measured; SR rendered
the aether worthless for this purpose.
Michelson experiments demonstrated there is no aether.
That has a wide assortment of implications including
effects on how to treat Hubble expansion.
Here's the part that puzzles me - SR shows that C is the
same in any inertial frame of reference. Why is that the
same as saying it's a constant at all times in the universe?
The same everywhere and the same every-when sorta mean
the same thing and sorta don't mean the same thing. The
nature of time isn't that well known.
My problem is I think dark matter and dark energy are
getting into epicycles, yet any math about non-constant
C I've ever seen has been from cranks.
Setting aside a mechanism for it, what if the current
value of C changed gradually over time on a scale similar
to Hubble's constant? That is to say the apparent receding
of distant galaxies is from that gradual change not from
receding? Or at least the acceleration is from that not
from actually accelerating expansion. But C is the mapping
of distance to time so what would it even mean for C to
change?
Various data don't quite fit with simple gravity models -
The Voyagers drifting more than expected. The need to
introduce dark matter and dark energy that have never been
observed. If they could all be explained by something
simple but not obvious.
I first tried thinking of the expansion of the universe in
terms of quantum mechanics. The idea of a "Planck cell"
is a rehash of the aether, and if the expansion were by
inserting new "Planck cells" it would take longer for light
to reach us from distant places rather than red shifting.
The Michelson experiments show this is not the right answer.
But Planck's constant is similar to C in being a mapping of
distance to time.
So if the universe is expanding everywhere at the same
(accelerating) rate, I don't get how C and/or Planck's
constant changing across time isn't a simpler explanation
that doesn't need to introduce unknowns like dark matter
and dark energy. Space gets bigger because the mapping of
distance to time shifts gradually - A hypothesis I find
simpler than dark energy but I don't have the math skills
to express C as a mixture that includes Hubble expansion.
It seems crank-like but somehow it seems less crank-like
than dark matter and dark energy.
Distance (the size of the universe) getting bigger with
constant C is very much the same as C getting slower with
constant size of the universe, isn't it? If time's
symmetrical then the two views are identical, but time is
not symmetrical. Try as I might I can't see how this
view is any worse than dark energy. Except it's pretty
unromantic for prospects of time and the future. Some
creepy CS Lewis Narnia imagery in there ...
[/quote:b456267df7]
And then you have the mystery of what's beyond the causal horizon.
Hard to know about something you can't observe. There could be
trillions of big bang universes there. Maybe as many as there are
quantum fluctuations in the observable universe. Who knows? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ©2009 Martin Musatov.... |
| Posted: Fri Sep 11, 2009 3:04 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Musatov wrote:
On Sep 11, 5:42 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl... at (no spam) cox.net>
wrote:
[quote:121e3bde3c]Dear Doug Freyburger:
"Doug Freyburger" <dfrey... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:h8ehtg$nfi$1 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org...
...
Here's the part that puzzles me - SR shows that C is the
same in any inertial frame of reference.
No. Maxwell's equations provide a constant c, and SR allow you
then to infer what a moving observer would measure, based on
measurements in your own frame.
Why is that the same as saying it's a constant at all
times in the universe?
It isn't.
...
Setting aside a mechanism for it, what if the current
value of C changed gradually over time on a scale similar
to Hubble's constant?
As part of the set of constants defining the "fine structure
constant", it has been shown to have changed by 1 part in 10^8 in
the last 14 billion years.
That is to say the apparent receding of distant galaxies
is from that gradual change not from receding?
No. It says nothing about that.
Or at least the acceleration is from that not from
actually accelerating expansion.
No, it says nothing about that either.
But C is the mapping of distance to time so what
would it even mean for C to change?
Nothing you can detect in the world around you, a world whose
size is explicitly and exactly defined by said c.
...
Distance (the size of the universe) getting bigger with
constant C is very much the same as C getting slower
with constant size of the universe, isn't it?
No. What it is similar to is everything "shrinking", because
"local clock rates" are increasing due to relaxation of global
curvature.
David A. Smith
[/quote:121e3bde3c]
©2009 Martin Musatov.
[quote:121e3bde3c]Image Compressor for 3-D Model Web Transmissible:
(TM)© 20
http://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=3e15f913b6&view=a
tt&th=123abae6598351b4&attid=0.1&disp=inline&realattid
=f_fzhm7b760&zw
The neatest thumbnail you have ever seen:
[/quote:121e3bde3c]
http://meami.org/mail.png =http://mathforum.org/kb/servlet/JiveServlet/download/13-1984685-6841228-567982/mail.png
[quote:121e3bde3c]
09 Martin Musatov: (wrote)
New Image Compressor for 3-D Model Web
Transmissible:
http://meami.org/480px-Rubik%27s_cube_svg.png
Oh, that is beautiful!
http://mathforum.org/kb/servlet/JiveServlet/download/1
3-1984493-6841197-567977/480px-Rubik's_cube_svg.png
So cool!
Musatov:
New Image Compressor for 3-D Model Web (TM)
Transmissible:
http://meami.org/480px-Rubik%27s_cube_svg.png
Oh, that is beautiful!
http://mathforum.org/kb/servlet/JiveServlet/download/1
3-1984493-6841197-567977/480px-Rubik's_cube_svg.png
So cool!
© Martin Musatov 1978-2009. All Rights Reserved. > -31[/quote:121e3bde3c] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ©2009 Martin Musatov.... |
| Posted: Fri Sep 11, 2009 3:11 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sep 11, 6:04 pm, ©2009 Martin Musatov. <marty.musa... at (no spam) gmail.com>
wrote:
[quote:fd82bb99b7]Musatov wrote:
On Sep 11, 5:42 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl... at (no spam) cox.net
wrote:
Dear Doug Freyburger:
"Doug Freyburger" <dfrey... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:h8ehtg$nfi$1 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org...
...
Here's the part that puzzles me - SR shows that C is the
same in any inertial frame of reference.
No. Maxwell's equations provide a constant c, and SR allow you
then to infer what a moving observer would measure, based on
measurements in your own frame.
Why is that the same as saying it's a constant at all
times in the universe?
It isn't.
...
Setting aside a mechanism for it, what if the current
value of C changed gradually over time on a scale similar
to Hubble's constant?
As part of the set of constants defining the "fine structure
constant", it has been shown to have changed by 1 part in 10^8 in
the last 14 billion years.
That is to say the apparent receding of distant galaxies
is from that gradual change not from receding?
No. It says nothing about that.
Or at least the acceleration is from that not from
actually accelerating expansion.
No, it says nothing about that either.
But C is the mapping of distance to time so what
would it even mean for C to change?
Nothing you can detect in the world around you, a world whose
size is explicitly and exactly defined by said c.
...
Distance (the size of the universe) getting bigger with
constant C is very much the same as C getting slower
with constant size of the universe, isn't it?
No. What it is similar to is everything "shrinking", because
"local clock rates" are increasing due to relaxation of global
curvature.
David A. Smith
©2009 Martin Musatov.
Image Compressor for 3-D Model Web Transmissible:
(TM)© 20
http://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=3e15f913b6&view=a
tt&th=123abae6598351b4&attid=0.1&disp=inline&realattid
=f_fzhm7b760&zw
The neatest thumbnail you have ever seen:
http://meami.org/mail.png==http://mathforum.org/kb/servlet/JiveServlet/download/13-1984685-68412...
09 Martin Musatov: (wrote)
New Image Compressor for 3-D Model Web
Transmissible:
http://meami.org/480px-Rubik%27s_cube_svg.png
Oh, that is beautiful!
http://mathforum.org/kb/servlet/JiveServlet/download/1
3-1984493-6841197-567977/480px-Rubik's_cube_svg.png
So cool!
Musatov:
New Image Compressor for 3-D Model Web (TM)
Transmissible:
http://meami.org/480px-Rubik%27s_cube_svg.png
Oh, that is beautiful!
http://mathforum.org/kb/servlet/JiveServlet/download/1
3-1984493-6841197-567977/480px-Rubik's_cube_svg.png
So cool!
[/quote:fd82bb99b7]
Now available in 27s MeAmI (TM) Technology
by Martin Musatov
©1978-2009. All Rights Reserved. > > -31-:1
http://meami.org/480px-Rubik%27s_cube_svg.png
[quote:fd82bb99b7]Martin Musatov 1978-2009. All Rights Reserved. > > -31- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -[/quote:fd82bb99b7] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:56 pm
|
|