🚀 go-pugleaf

"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:041a9d00-563e-4248-a38d-bdf8c15d6a62@c2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
>> > 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"

Yes it can

> because this would allow
> Einsteinians to trap it inside a short container

That's right, it could

> and the implications
> are more than absurd.

You just can't understand it .. that is your failing, not that of 
relativity.

> See even more absurdity here:
>
> http://www.labnews.co.uk/laboratory_article.php/4514/2/attack-on-great-pillar-of-physics

Anything Pentcho posts is absurd.