🚀 go-pugleaf

> > If the observer suddenly starts moving towards the light source, the
> > frequency of light increases (Doppler effect). This has a SIMPLE
> > IMPLICATION: the wavecrests are now bumping more frequently into the
> > observer, that is, THE SPEED OF LIGHT RELATIVE TO THE OBSERVER HAS
> > INCREASED. "But this is fatal for Divine Albert's Divine Theory" - say
> > to themselves Einsteiniana's teachers and replace the SIMPLE
> > IMPLICATION with an IDIOTIC ONE:
>
> > 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)."
>
> > If Einsteinians want to leave their schizophrenic world, they should
> > return to the SIMPLE IMPLICATION by realizing that the wavelength is
> > determined by the light source and cannot depend on the movements of
> > the observer.
>
> > By the way, John Baez, Einsteiniana's most famous teacher, has already
> > left Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world:
>
> > 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."
>
> Einsteinians who want to leave Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world
> should also consider this:
>
> http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
> "So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is not constant in
> a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, APPLIES AS
> WELL TO ACCELERATING (NON-INERTIAL) FRAMES OF REFERENCE]. If this were
> not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational field
> of stars....Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the calculation
> in: 'On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light,'
> Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911. which predated the full formal
> development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is
> widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99
> of the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity.' You will find in
> section 3 of that paper, Einstein's derivation of the (variable) speed
> of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is,
> c' = c0 ( 1 + V / c^2 )
> where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
> speed of light c0 is measured."
>
> and ask the question: If the speed of light varies with the
> gravitational potential in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2),
> how does it vary with the relative speed v of the light source (at the
> moment of emission) and an observer belonging to an ACCELERATING (NON-
> INERTIAL) FRAME OF REFERENCE (at the moment of reception)? They could
> solve the problem in the following way:
>
> A light source on top of a tower of height h emits light with
> frequency f, speed c (relative to the source) and wavelength L. A
> receiver on the ground receives light with frequency f', speed
> c' (relative to the receiver) and wavelength L'. Einstein's 1911
> solution gives:
>
> f'=f(1+gh/c^2); c'=c(1+gh/c^2); L'=L
>
> A rocket of length h accelerates with acceleration g. A light source
> at the front end emits light with frequency f, speed c (relative to
> the source) and wavelength L. A receiver at the back end receives
> light with frequency f', speed c' (relative to the receiver) and
> wavelength L'. At the moment of reception, the receiver has speed v
> relative to the light source at the moment of emission. Einstein's
> equivalence principle gives:
>
> f'=f(1+v/c); c'=c+v; L'=L
>
> Clearly, Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world should be abandoned.

Perhaps Einsteinians CANNOT leave their schizophrenic world but they
could at least stop destroying children's rationality in this way:

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/mmedia/specrel/lc.cfm
A high school physics tutorial: "One of the peculiar aspects of
Einstein's theory of special relativity is that the length of objects
moving at relativistic speeds undergoes a contraction along the
dimension of motion. An observer at rest (relative to the moving
object) would observe the moving object to be shorter in length. That
is to say, that an object at rest might be measured to be 200 feet
long; yet the same object when moving at relativistic speeds relative
to the observer/measurer would have a measured length which is less
than 200 ft. This phenomenon is not due to actual errors in
measurement or faulty observations. The object is actually contracted
in length as seen from the stationary reference frame. The amount of
contraction of the object is dependent upon the object's speed
relative to the observer."

The object cannot be "actually contracted" because this would allow
Einsteinians to trap it inside a short container and the implications
are more than absurd. See even more absurdity here:

http://www.labnews.co.uk/laboratory_article.php/4514/2/attack-on-great-pillar-of-physics

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com