Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #399586 > unrolled thread

The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-24 03:49 -0800
    The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-24 04:33 -0800
    Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-11-24 09:46 -0600
      Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity Dusty Kollmann <uberdrivery@uberdriver.info> - 2016-11-24 20:43 +0000
        Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-11-25 17:46 +0100
          Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity alsor@interia.pl - 2016-11-25 14:04 -0800
            Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-11-26 00:20 +0100
              Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-11-26 01:56 +0100
              Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity alsor@interia.pl - 2016-11-25 17:18 -0800
                Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-11-26 02:49 +0100
                  Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity alsor@interia.pl - 2016-11-26 08:46 -0800
                    Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-11-26 19:30 +0100
                      Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity alsor@interia.pl - 2016-11-26 12:37 -0800
                        Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-11-27 13:19 +0100
                          Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-11-27 16:54 +0100
                            Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity alsor@interia.pl - 2016-11-27 12:08 -0800
                              Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2016-12-03 11:05 +0100
                                Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity alsor@interia.pl - 2016-12-03 09:51 -0800
                                  Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2016-12-04 09:44 +0100
                                    Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity alsor@interia.pl - 2016-12-04 09:07 -0800
                                      Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-04 09:17 -0800
                                        Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity alsor@interia.pl - 2016-12-04 09:48 -0800
                                          Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-04 15:39 -0800
                                            Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity alsor@interia.pl - 2016-12-05 12:31 -0800
                                              Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-05 13:23 -0800
                          Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity alsor@interia.pl - 2016-11-27 11:08 -0800
                            Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-11-27 21:29 +0100
                              Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity alsor@interia.pl - 2016-11-27 13:34 -0800
                                Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-11-27 23:42 +0100
                                  Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity alsor@interia.pl - 2016-11-30 09:13 -0800
                                    Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-11-30 19:26 +0100
                                      Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-30 12:51 -0600
                                        Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-12-01 14:35 +0100
                                          Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-12-01 14:42 +0100
                                          Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 10:06 -0600
                                            Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-12-02 16:40 +0100
                                              Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-02 09:52 -0600
                                                Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-12-02 18:45 +0100
                                              Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-02 10:37 -0600
                                      Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity alsor@interia.pl - 2016-11-30 11:03 -0800
                                        Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-12-01 14:21 +0100
                                          Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-12-01 15:25 +0100
                                            Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity Julian Alewine <lliian@lliianenpo.org> - 2016-12-01 14:31 +0000
                                          Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity alsor@interia.pl - 2016-12-02 11:15 -0800
                                            Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-02 12:17 -0800
                                              Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity alsor@interia.pl - 2016-12-03 09:47 -0800
                                                Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-03 09:56 -0800
                                                  Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity alsor@interia.pl - 2016-12-03 10:49 -0800
                                                    Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-03 10:58 -0800
                                                      Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity alsor@interia.pl - 2016-12-03 11:31 -0800
                                            Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-12-02 22:18 +0100
                                        Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-01 17:30 +0000
    Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-24 15:51 -0800
      Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-24 16:15 -0800

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#399586 — The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity

As the observer starts moving away from the light source, his motion is obviously unable to change the wavelength of the light chasing him. This statement is a truism and yet it is fatal for Einstein's relativity. The frequency measured by the observer shifts from f to f'=(1-v/c)f, where v is the speed of the moving observer relative to the source, and the speed of the light relative to the observer shifts, accordingly, from c to c'=c-v, in violation of Einstein's relativity.

Actually any correct interpretation of the Doppler effect (moving observer) is based, explicitly or implicitly, on the trivial fact that the motion of the observer is unable to change the wavelength of the incoming light. That is, any correct interpretation of the Doppler effect refutes Einstein's relativity. Here are three examples of stating the trivial fact explicitly: 

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/315/Waveshtml/node41.html 
 "Thus, THE MOVING OBSERVER SEES A WAVE POSSESSING THE SAME WAVELENGTH [...] but a different frequency [...] to that seen by the stationary observer. This phenomenon is known as the Doppler effect. If f is the wave frequency (in hertz) seen by the stationary observer then the wave frequency seen by the moving observer is

f' = (1 - Uo/v)f

where v is the characteristic wave speed. [...] In fact, when applied to light propagation in a vacuum, the formula is only accurate up to first-order in Uo/c and Us/c (Rindler 1997). In other words, for light propagation the previous equation reduces to

f' = [1 - U/c + 0(U^2/c^2)]f

where U is the relative radial velocity of the source with respect to the observer." [end of quotation]

http://physics.ucsd.edu/students/courses/summer2011/session1/physics2c/Waves.pdf 
 "Doppler effect [...] Let u be speed of source or observer [...] Doppler Shift: Moving Observer. Shift in frequency only, WAVELENGTH DOES NOT CHANGE. Speed observed = v+u [...] Observed frequency shift f'=f(1±u/v)"

http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler 
 Albert Einstein Institute: "Here is an animation of the receiver moving towards the source: 

http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_static.gif (stationary receiver) 

http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_detector_blue.gif (moving receiver) 

By observing the two indicator lights, you can see for yourself that, once more, there is a blue-shift - the pulse frequency measured at the receiver is somewhat higher than the frequency with which the pulses are sent out. This time, THE DISTANCES BETWEEN SUBSEQUENT PULSES ARE NOT AFFECTED, but still there is a frequency shift: As the receiver moves towards each pulse, the time until pulse and receiver meet up is shortened. In this particular animation, which has the receiver moving towards the source at one third the speed of the pulses themselves, four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses." [end of quotation]

Pentcho Valev

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#399588

I would speculate Relativity is very Valid & very Accurate up to a Time Dilation of the reciprocal of the magnetic constant. 

Beyond that, space time would more closely resemble something similar to the inflationary epoch or a loss of dimensionality  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#399610

On 11/24/16 11/24/16   5:49 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> [... much nonsense, ignorance, and error]

The only things "fatal" here are VALEV'S MISTAKES. He ASSUMES that all observers 
measure the same wavelength for a given light ray, IN CONTRADICTION TO ACTUAL 
MEASUREMENTS. So everything he says is wrong.

Moreover, Valev is unable to read his references. For instance, the first one 
explicitly says "Assuming non-relativistic motion [...]". So it's no surprise 
that it shows NON-RELATIVISTIC formulas.

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#399629

Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 11/24/16 11/24/16   5:49 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>> [... much nonsense, ignorance, and error]
> 
> The only things "fatal" here are VALEV'S MISTAKES. He ASSUMES that all
> observers measure the same wavelength for a given light ray, IN
> CONTRADICTION TO ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS. So everything he says is wrong.

what would be the detectable difference in 
1. different wavelengths at same speed
2. same wavelengths at different speeds

> Moreover, Valev is unable to read his references. For instance, the
> first one explicitly says "Assuming non-relativistic motion [...]". So
> it's no surprise that it shows NON-RELATIVISTIC formulas.  Tom Roberts

This must have been the difference, non-relativistic? Is him right after 
all, things may run non-relativisticly? Thanks, this is great.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#399686

The ’nym-shifting troll wrote as "Dusty Kollmann":

> Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 11/24/16 11/24/16   5:49 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>>> [... much nonsense, ignorance, and error]
>> 
>> The only things "fatal" here are VALEV'S MISTAKES. He ASSUMES that all
>> observers measure the same wavelength for a given light ray, IN
>> CONTRADICTION TO ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS. So everything he says is wrong.
> 
> what would be the detectable difference in
> 1. different wavelengths at same speed

Redshift/blueshift of the light signal corresponding to the velocity of the 
source relative to the observer, and signal arrival times corresponding to 
the distance from the observer to the source when the signal was emitted, 
when traveling at the same constant, frequency/wavelength-invariant speed.  
This is what is being observed.

> 2. same wavelengths at different speeds
 
The opposite of the above.  This is not what is being observed, IOW this 
idea is experimentally refuted.

>> Moreover, Valev is unable to read his references. For instance, the
>> first one explicitly says "Assuming non-relativistic motion [...]". So
>> it's no surprise that it shows NON-RELATIVISTIC formulas.  Tom Roberts
> 
> This must have been the difference, non-relativistic? Is him right after
> all, things may run non-relativisticly? Thanks, this is great.

Gibbering, ’nym-shifting troll.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#399714

W dniu piątek, 25 listopada 2016 17:46:33 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
 
> Redshift/blueshift of the light signal corresponding to the velocity of the 
> source relative to the observer, and signal arrival times corresponding to 
> the distance from the observer to the source when the signal was emitted, 
> when traveling at the same constant, frequency/wavelength-invariant speed.  

Indeed.
Similarily the Sun revelves around us, one cycle pler 24h
thus with a speed: 150 mln km / 24h = 1736 km/s.

This is just what is being observed. haha!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#399720

alsor@interia.pl wrote:

> W dniu piątek, 25 listopada 2016 17:46:33 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas
> 'PointedEars' Lahn
>> Redshift/blueshift of the light signal corresponding to the velocity of
>> the source relative to the observer, and signal arrival times
>> corresponding to the distance from the observer to the source when the
>> signal was emitted, when traveling at the same constant,
>> frequency/wavelength-invariant speed.
> 
> Indeed.
> Similarily the Sun revelves around us,

If “us” is not located in or near the center of the galaxy, then No, it does 
not.

> one cycle pler 24h

One sidereal Terran day is ca. 23 standard hours and 56 minutes long.

> thus with a speed: 150 mln km / 24h = 1736 km/s.

By coincidence, the equatorial rotational speed of Terra is ca. 
1'674.36 km∕h (Cox 2000).

But how did you get the idea of “150 mln km”?  You do realize that 150 
million kilometers would be approximately the *radius* of the star’s orbit 
if it would revolve around the planet (instead of in reality vice-versa), 
yes?
 
> This is just what is being observed. haha!

Apparently you have not understood what I wrote:

To the effects that can be observed (or, in the case of the second idea, 
cannot be observed), and that are predicted by special relativity, it is 
only relevant that the observer and the light source are moving *relative to 
each other*, i.e. that *their distance to each other is changing with time*.

It does not matter which of the two is, or if both are, considered to be
“in motion” as the concept of motion is meaningless without a frame of 
reference.

  [For example, we observe the light of the neighboring Andromeda Galaxy
   to be blueshifted; it is moving towards us in the Milky Way Galaxy,
   or more precisely the two galaxies are moving towards each other,
   and they will merge in ca. 4 × 10⁹ years.

   By contrast, we observe the light of far more distant galaxies to be
   redshifted because, although their peculiar velocity might be directed
   towards us, it is more than compensated by the recessional velocity of
   the expanding universe directed away from us.  We also observe galaxies
   being older the farther they are away.  So it took time for that light
   to reach us, which is only possible if the speed of light is finite;
   combined with the blueshift/redshift, only if the speed of light is also
   constant (which has been confirmed by countless other experiments, too).]

So your argument is not only ridiculous, it is doubly fallacious.

_________
Arthur N. Cox, ed. (2000). Allen's Astrophysical Quantities (4th ed.).
New York: AIP Press. p. 244. ISBN 0-387-98746-0. Retrieved 17 August 2010.
<https://books.google.com/?id=w8PK2XFLLH8C&pg=PA244>
-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#399724

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

>                                               […] We also observe galaxies
>    being older the farther they are away.  So it took time for that light
>    to reach us, which is only possible if the speed of light is finite;
>    combined with the blueshift/redshift, only if the speed of light is
>    also constant (which has been confirmed by countless other experiments,
>    too).]

With natural language it sometimes is difficult to be precise.  So in order 
not to be misunderstood, a clarification:

We observe that galaxies *appear* *younger*, with more stars of earlier and 
fewer stars of later generations (it takes time for stars to form that 
consist of and can produce heavier elements), and fewer stars in general (it 
takes time for an interstellar gas cloud to collapse and form stars), the 
farther they are away from us.  Apparently, the farther we are looking into 
the universe, the farther we are looking into the past.

This also means that galaxies that are farther away from us *are* *older* 
*now* than galaxies that are closer to us, because the light they emitted in 
their “youth” took some time (billions of years in some cases) to reach us 
*now*.
 
-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#399726

W dniu sobota, 26 listopada 2016 00:20:24 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napisał:
> > one cycle pler 24h
> 
> One sidereal Terran day is ca. 23 standard hours and 56 minutes long.

You observe the Sun motion with a cycle 24h, perfectly!
 
> It does not matter which of the two is, or if both are, considered to be
> “in motion” as the concept of motion is meaningless without a frame of 
> reference.

The observed Doppler shift depends still on the observer speed,
unfortunately.. to the fantastic postulates of the stupid relativity.
 
>   [For example, we observe the light of the neighboring Andromeda Galaxy
>    to be blueshifted; it is moving towards us in the Milky Way Galaxy,
>    or more precisely the two galaxies are moving towards each other,
>    and they will merge in ca. 4 × 10⁹ years.
> 
>    By contrast, we observe the light of far more distant galaxies to be
>    redshifted because, although their peculiar velocity might be directed
>    towards us, it is more than compensated by the recessional velocity of
>    the expanding universe directed away from us.  We also observe galaxies
>    being older the farther they are away.  So it took time for that light
>    to reach us, which is only possible if the speed of light is finite;
>    combined with the blueshift/redshift, only if the speed of light is also
>    constant (which has been confirmed by countless other experiments, too).]
> 
> So your argument is not only ridiculous, it is doubly fallacious.

Your arguments are much more stupid then these in the geocentric era!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#399728

alsor@interia.pl wrote:

> W dniu sobota, 26 listopada 2016 00:20:24 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas
> 'PointedEars' Lahn napisał:
>> > one cycle pler 24h
>> One sidereal Terran day is ca. 23 standard hours and 56 minutes long.
> 
> You observe the Sun motion with a cycle 24h, perfectly!

No, and repeating this nonsense over and over again does not make it true.
  
>> It does not matter which of the two is, or if both are, considered to be
>> “in motion” as the concept of motion is meaningless without a frame of
>> reference.
> 
> The observed Doppler shift depends still on the observer speed,
> unfortunately..

No, it only depends on the speed of the light source *relative* to the 
observer (and vice-versa).

> to the fantastic postulates of the stupid relativity.

I pity you for not being able to grasp the incredibly simple principle of 
relativity, in particular the relativity of motion.  But contrary to your 
misconception it was known and understood long before Einstein, from the 
time of Galileo Galilei.  I have explained this to you before (“Galileo’s 
ship”), but you would not listen.

The simplest example of relative motion that I can think of is similar to 
the one Einstein used (he used trains):

You are sitting in a bus that is traveling at a speed of 50 km∕h according 
to its tachometer.  Now, please answer these simple questions (it suffices 
if you answer them to yourself):

- Are you moving with respect to the pavement outside?
- Is the bus moving with respect to the pavement outside?
- Is the bus moving with respect to you?
- Is it absolutely correct to say that the bus is moving?  Why (not)?
- Are you moving with respect to the bus?
- Is it absolutely correct to say that you are moving?  Why (not)?
  
-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#399805

W dniu sobota, 26 listopada 2016 02:49:36 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

> > You observe the Sun motion with a cycle 24h, perfectly!
> 
> No, and repeating this nonsense over and over again does not make it true.

OK. Now we know You have not seen a clock in your life yet.

> > The observed Doppler shift depends still on the observer speed,
> > unfortunately..
> 
> No, it only depends on the speed of the light source *relative* to the 
> observer (and vice-versa).

No, the Doopler shift is a two-variable function:
speed of a source: vs, and a speed of the recever: vr.

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

f'/f = 1 - vr / 1 - vs

but in the reality the clocks slown-down thus 
the observed Doppler shift is just that:

f'/f = (1 - vr) / (1 - vs) x gamma(vr)/gamma(vs) = 
sqrt[(1 - vr)^2 / (1 - vs)^2 x (1-vs^2)/(1-vr^2)] = 
sqrt[(1 - vr)/(1 - vs) x (1+vs)/(1+vr)]

it's the correct result,
but in the relativity you assume vr = 0,
therefore the relativistic version is:
 
sqrt[(1 + vs)/(1 - vs)]; 

it's just a stupid approximation, with an error:
sqrt[(1-vr)/(1+vr)] =~ 1 - vr

so, the error of the simple relativistic Doppler is gigantic,
because a first order of speed of observer: v/c !!!

> > to the fantastic postulates of the stupid relativity.
> 
> I pity you for not being able to grasp the incredibly simple principle of 
> relativity, in particular the relativity of motion.  But contrary to your 
> misconception it was known and understood long before Einstein, from the 
> time of Galileo Galilei.  I have explained this to you before (“Galileo’s 
> ship”), but you would not listen.
> 
> The simplest example of relative motion that I can think of is similar to 
> the one Einstein used (he used trains):
> 
> You are sitting in a bus that is traveling at a speed of 50 km∕h according 
> to its tachometer.  Now, please answer these simple questions (it suffices 
> if you answer them to yourself):
> 
> - Are you moving with respect to the pavement outside?
> - Is the bus moving with respect to the pavement outside?
> - Is the bus moving with respect to you?
> - Is it absolutely correct to say that the bus is moving?  Why (not)?
> - Are you moving with respect to the bus?
> - Is it absolutely correct to say that you are moving?  Why (not)?

You are stupid:
the relative speed and a relativistic speed is not the same thing.

a relative speed is simply: v = vo - vr
but the relativistic is: vo - vr / 1 - vo*vr;
so the relativity approximation gives an error: vo*vr,
which is about 1e-6 in the Earth - just like in the flybys anomalies: 1mm/s / 1km/s = 1e-6.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#399824

alsor@interia.pl wrote:

> W dniu sobota, 26 listopada 2016 02:49:36 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas
> 'PointedEars' Lahn

Attribution _line_, not attribution novel…

>> > You observe the Sun motion with a cycle 24h, perfectly!
>> No, and repeating this nonsense over and over again does not make it
>> true.
> 
> OK. Now we know You have not seen a clock in your life yet.

No, now we know that you have no idea about the universe, starting with the 
Sun.
 
>> > The observed Doppler shift depends still on the observer speed,
>> > unfortunately..
>> 
>> No, it only depends on the speed of the light source *relative* to the
>> observer (and vice-versa).
> 
> No, the Doopler shift is a two-variable function:
> speed of a source: vs, and a speed of the recever: vr.

True, and v = |v_s − v_r| is the *relative* speed of the source to the 
receiver.  The only speed that matters with light.
 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect
> 
> f'/f = 1 - vr / 1 - vs
> 
> [ex falso quodlibet]

This nonsense is your invention; it is certainly not corroborated by the 
Wikipedia article that you are citing.

Besides, you forgot to apply the Lorentz transform to the *actual* equation.

Bottom line: You have no clue what you are talking about.

<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/reldop2.html#c1> pp.

>> You are sitting in a bus that is traveling at a speed of 50 km∕h
>> according to its tachometer.  Now, please answer these simple questions
>> (it suffices if you answer them to yourself):
>> 
>> - Are you moving with respect to the pavement outside?
>> - Is the bus moving with respect to the pavement outside?
>> - Is the bus moving with respect to you?
>> - Is it absolutely correct to say that the bus is moving?  Why (not)?
>> - Are you moving with respect to the bus?
>> - Is it absolutely correct to say that you are moving?  Why (not)?
> 
> You are stupid:

You have avoided answering my questions.

> the relative speed and a relativistic speed is not the same thing.

True, because “relative speed” means a speed that is measured against a 
chosen frame of reference; and a “relativistic speed” means a relative speed 
that is high enough so that relativistic effects, time dilation and length 
contraction, become significant and one must apply the Lorentz transform to 
quantities that depend on time and length, such as speed, for a proper 
result.

But that was not the question.
 
> a relative speed is simply: v = vo - vr
> but the relativistic is: vo - vr / 1 - vo*vr;

Utter nonsense.

> so […]

Ex falso quodlibet.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#399837

W dniu sobota, 26 listopada 2016 19:30:51 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars' 

> >> > You observe the Sun motion with a cycle 24h, perfectly!
> >> No, and repeating this nonsense over and over again does not make it
> >> true.
> > 
> > OK. Now we know You have not seen a clock in your life yet.
> 
> No, now we know that you have no idea about the universe, starting with the 
> Sun.

Do you know elementary arithmetics?

Try to compute this:
86400 [seconds] = x [hours]

it's very hard equation. :)
  
> > f'/f = 1 - vr / 1 - vs
> > 
> > [ex falso quodlibet]
> 
> This nonsense is your invention; it is certainly not corroborated by the 
> Wikipedia article that you are citing.

It's perfectly correct:


vs----->S=========>R-->vr--------> x

1. a moving source: 1/1-vs; a signal is emited along the vs direction
2. a moving receiver: 1-vr; the signal is moving along the vr also

finally:
1/1-vs x 1-vr = 1 - vr / 1 - vs
 
> Besides, you forgot to apply the Lorentz transform to the *actual* equation.

I use the correct - exact solution, not the SR approximation.

The correct formula for the Doppler shift is:

sqrt[(1-vr)/(1-vs) x (1+vs)/(1+vr)] 

and the relativistic is just that:
sqrt[(1 - v)/(1 + v)];

where v is a relativistic speed (a fictitious number):
v = vs-vr / 1-ve*vs; (c=1)
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#399896

alsor@interia.pl wrote:

> W dniu sobota, 26 listopada 2016 19:30:51 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas
> 'PointedEars'
>> >> > You observe the Sun motion with a cycle 24h, perfectly!
>> >> No, and repeating this nonsense over and over again does not make it
>> >> true.
>> > 
>> > OK. Now we know You have not seen a clock in your life yet.
>> 
>> No, now we know that you have no idea about the universe, starting with
>> the Sun.
> 
> Do you know elementary arithmetics?
> 
> Try to compute this:
> 86400 [seconds] = x [hours]
> 
> it's very hard equation. :)

If you cared to read, that one day has 24 hours, one hour has 60 minutes, 
and one minute has 60 seconds, which makes 86'400 seconds per day, are 
*conventions* to make life easier (passed down from Ptolemy and Muslim 
scholars).

It is _not_ the astronomical reality.  There are several definitions of 
“day” in that regard: the *solar day* (the time it takes for Sol [the Sun] 
to return to its highest point in the Terran sky: only *on average* 86'400 
seconds), and the *sidereal day* (from Latin «sidus» “star”; the time it 
takes a location on the surface of Terra to have the same stars in the 
zenith again, or IOW to complete one full rotation): (currently) 23 hours, 
56 minutes, and 4.1 seconds.

Obviously, in considering Terra’s *rotation*, one must refer to the 
*sidereal* day, which I *explicitly* did (you just did not pay attention).
   
>> > f'/f = 1 - vr / 1 - vs
>> > 
>> > [ex falso quodlibet]
>> 
>> This nonsense is your invention; it is certainly not corroborated by the
>> Wikipedia article that you are citing.
> 
> It's perfectly correct:

No, it is not.  Learn to read.
 
>> Besides, you forgot to apply the Lorentz transform to the *actual*
>> equation.
> 
> I use the correct - exact solution,

No, you do not.

> not the SR approximation.
> 
> The correct formula for the Doppler shift is:
> 
> sqrt[(1-vr)/(1-vs) x (1+vs)/(1+vr)]

That is not even an equation, and it certainly is not "the correct formula".
 
> and the relativistic is just that:
> sqrt[(1 - v)/(1 + v)];

That is not an equation either.  You *really* need to *learn* what you are 
talking about.
 
> where v is a relativistic speed (a fictitious number):
> v = vs-vr / 1-ve*vs; (c=1)

Wrong.  As you could also have read in what I referred you to, the correct 
equation for the relativistic Doppler effect is

  v_observed = v_source √(1 − (v∕c)²)∕√(1 − v∕c)                       (1)

or

  v_observed = v_source √(1 + v∕c)∕(1 − v∕c))

where v is the *relative speed* of source and observer (positive if the 
source is approaching the observer).

(Notice those *square roots*?  They are *missing* from *all* your 
"formulas", from which one can see *at a glance* that you have _not_ applied 
the Lorentz transform *correctly*.)

And if you prefer to use natural units (c := 1) – although you are clearly 
not understanding them –, then it becomes

  v_observed = v_source √(1 − v²)∕√(1 − v)

or

  v_observed = v_source √(1 + v)∕(1 − v))

(and the square roots *are still there*).

Even if, just for fun, we solve equation 1 for v, we get

  v = c

and

  v = c v_observed²∕v_source² − c

so for c := 1:

  v = 1

and

  v = v_observed²∕v_source² − 1,

(Not *remotely* what you have.)

So much for “elementary arithmetics”.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#399913

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> alsor@interia.pl wrote:
>> where v is a relativistic speed (a fictitious number):
>> v = vs-vr / 1-ve*vs; (c=1)
> 
> Wrong.  As you could also have read in what I referred you to, the correct
> equation for the relativistic Doppler effect is
> 
>   v_observed = v_source √(1 − (v∕c)²)∕√(1 − v∕c)                       (1)
                                        ^
There is a square root too many in the denominator; it has to be

  v_observed = v_source √(1 − (v∕c)²)∕(1 − v∕c)                          (1)

> or
> 
>   v_observed = v_source √(1 + v∕c)∕(1 − v∕c))

This is therefore correct.

> where v is the *relative speed* of source and observer (positive if the
> source is approaching the observer).

> (Notice those *square roots*?  They are *missing* from *all* your 
> "formulas", from which one can see *at a glance* that you have _not_ 
> applied the Lorentz transform *correctly*.)

I concede that you *had* square roots; but you had them *wrong*:

>> sqrt[(1 - v)/(1 + v)];

See below.
 
> And if you prefer to use natural units (c := 1) – although you are clearly
> not understanding them –, then it becomes
> 
>   v_observed = v_source √(1 − v²)∕√(1 − v)

So this becomes

  v_observed = v_source √(1 − v²)∕(1 − v)

> or
> 
>   v_observed = v_source √(1 + v)∕(1 − v))
                           ^
Still correct, but a parenthesis is missing here:

    v_observed = v_source √((1 + v)∕(1 − v))

(Note that there is a *plus* in the numerator and a *minus* in the 
denominator where you had it *vice-versa*.)

> (and the square roots *are still there*).
> 
> Even if, just for fun, we solve equation 1 for v, we get
> 
>   v = c

Not anymore.

> and
> 
>   v = c v_observed²∕v_source² − c

This becomes

  v = c (v_observed² − v_source²)/(v_observed² + v_source²)

> so for c := 1:
> 
>   v = 1

Not anymore.

> and
> 
>   v = v_observed²∕v_source² − 1,

So,

  v = (v_observed² − v_source²)/(v_observed² + v_source²). ∎

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#399938

W dniu niedziela, 27 listopada 2016 16:54:43 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napisał:
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> 
> > alsor@interia.pl wrote:
> >> where v is a relativistic speed (a fictitious number):
> >> v = vs-vr / 1-ve*vs; (c=1)
> > 
> > Wrong.  As you could also have read in what I referred you to, the correct
> > equation for the relativistic Doppler effect is
> > 
> >   v_observed = v_source √(1 − (v∕c)²)∕√(1 − v∕c)                       (1)
>                                         ^
> There is a square root too many in the denominator; it has to be
> 
>   v_observed = v_source √(1 − (v∕c)²)∕(1 − v∕c)                          (1)
> 
> > or
> > 
> >   v_observed = v_source √(1 + v∕c)∕(1 − v∕c))
> 
> This is therefore correct.
> 
> > where v is the *relative speed* of source and observer (positive if the
> > source is approaching the observer).
> 
> > (Notice those *square roots*?  They are *missing* from *all* your 
> > "formulas", from which one can see *at a glance* that you have _not_ 
> > applied the Lorentz transform *correctly*.)
> 
> I concede that you *had* square roots; but you had them *wrong*:
> 
> >> sqrt[(1 - v)/(1 + v)];
> 
> See below.
>  
> > And if you prefer to use natural units (c := 1) – although you are clearly
> > not understanding them –, then it becomes
> > 
> >   v_observed = v_source √(1 − v²)∕√(1 − v)
> 
> So this becomes
> 
>   v_observed = v_source √(1 − v²)∕(1 − v)
> 
> > or
> > 
> >   v_observed = v_source √(1 + v)∕(1 − v))
>                            ^
> Still correct, but a parenthesis is missing here:
> 
>     v_observed = v_source √((1 + v)∕(1 − v))
> 
> (Note that there is a *plus* in the numerator and a *minus* in the 
> denominator where you had it *vice-versa*.)
> 
> > (and the square roots *are still there*).
> > 
> > Even if, just for fun, we solve equation 1 for v, we get
> > 
> >   v = c
> 
> Not anymore.
> 
> > and
> > 
> >   v = c v_observed²∕v_source² − c
> 
> This becomes
> 
>   v = c (v_observed² − v_source²)/(v_observed² + v_source²)
> 
> > so for c := 1:
> > 
> >   v = 1
> 
> Not anymore.

BTW

The c = 1
means the lightspeed is an unit for a speed.
 
for example: v = 0.5c,
is equal 0.5 simply if you use the unit c = 1 for a speed.

v = 1km/s => v = 1/300000 = 3.33e-6, of the lightspeed unit equal to c.
understand?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400669

Op 27-nov-2016 om 21:08 schreef alsor@interia.pl:

[snip]

> BTW
>
> The c = 1
> means the lightspeed is an unit for a speed.

Yes, we all know that.

>
> for example: v = 0.5c,
> is equal 0.5 simply if you use the unit c = 1 for a speed.
>
> v = 1km/s => v = 1/300000 = 3.33e-6, of the lightspeed unit equal to c.
> understand?
>

So you are saying that 1km/s = 1/300000.
I.o.w. you say that 1 second is 300000 km.
I hope that you agree that the latter directly follows
from the former.

Exercise: can you reformulate your example and write it
in a way that does not produce such a nonsensical statement?

Dirk Vdm

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400698

W dniu sobota, 3 grudnia 2016 11:05:57 UTC+1 użytkownik Dirk Van de moortel napisał:
> Op 27-nov-2016 om 21:08 schreef alsor@interia.pl:
> 
> [snip]
> 
> > BTW
> >
> > The c = 1
> > means the lightspeed is an unit for a speed.
> 
> Yes, we all know that.
> 
> >
> > for example: v = 0.5c,
> > is equal 0.5 simply if you use the unit c = 1 for a speed.
> >
> > v = 1km/s => v = 1/300000 = 3.33e-6, of the lightspeed unit equal to c.
> > understand?
> >
> 
> So you are saying that 1km/s = 1/300000.
> I.o.w. you say that 1 second is 300000 km.
> I hope that you agree that the latter directly follows
> from the former.
> 
> Exercise: can you reformulate your example and write it
> in a way that does not produce such a nonsensical statement?
> 
> Dirk Vdm

Don't think too much.
After all it's evident you are too stupid for the simple unit's algebra.

c = 300000 [km/s] = 1 [c]
understand?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400745

Op 03-dec-2016 om 18:51 schreef alsor@interia.pl:
> W dniu sobota, 3 grudnia 2016 11:05:57 UTC+1 użytkownik Dirk Van de moortel napisał:
>> Op 27-nov-2016 om 21:08 schreef alsor@interia.pl:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> BTW
>>>
>>> The c = 1
>>> means the lightspeed is an unit for a speed.
>>
>> Yes, we all know that.
>>
>>>
>>> for example: v = 0.5c,
>>> is equal 0.5 simply if you use the unit c = 1 for a speed.
>>>
>>> v = 1km/s => v = 1/300000 = 3.33e-6, of the lightspeed unit equal to c.
>>> understand?
>>>
>>
>> So you are saying that 1km/s = 1/300000.
>> I.o.w. you say that 1 second is 300000 km.
>> I hope that you agree that the latter directly follows
>> from the former.
>>
>> Exercise: can you reformulate your example and write it
>> in a way that does not produce such a nonsensical statement?
>>
>> Dirk Vdm
>
> Don't think too much.
> After all it's evident you are too stupid for the simple unit's algebra.
>
> c = 300000 [km/s] = 1 [c]
> understand?

If you can't even do this, I hope you don't wonder why
nobody ever takes you seriously :-|

Dirk Vdm

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400757

W dniu niedziela, 4 grudnia 2016 09:44:48 UTC+1 użytkownik Dirk Van de moortel napisał:
> Op 03-dec-2016 om 18:51 schreef alsor@interia.pl:
> > W dniu sobota, 3 grudnia 2016 11:05:57 UTC+1 użytkownik Dirk Van de moortel napisał:
> >> Op 27-nov-2016 om 21:08 schreef alsor@interia.pl:
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >>> BTW
> >>>
> >>> The c = 1
> >>> means the lightspeed is an unit for a speed.
> >>
> >> Yes, we all know that.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> for example: v = 0.5c,
> >>> is equal 0.5 simply if you use the unit c = 1 for a speed.
> >>>
> >>> v = 1km/s => v = 1/300000 = 3.33e-6, of the lightspeed unit equal to c.
> >>> understand?
> >>>
> >>
> >> So you are saying that 1km/s = 1/300000.
> >> I.o.w. you say that 1 second is 300000 km.
> >> I hope that you agree that the latter directly follows
> >> from the former.
> >>
> >> Exercise: can you reformulate your example and write it
> >> in a way that does not produce such a nonsensical statement?
> >>
> >> Dirk Vdm
> >
> > Don't think too much.
> > After all it's evident you are too stupid for the simple unit's algebra.
> >
> > c = 300000 [km/s] = 1 [c]
> > understand?
> 
> If you can't even do this, I hope you don't wonder why
> nobody ever takes you seriously :-|
> 
> Dirk Vdm

I'm the only one serious expert in this circus
called as relativistic phys/math.

Another example - about the Lorentz transform:

x' = k(x-vt);

therefore:
c'(f) = dx'/dt = k(c-vcosf);

but the correct local version is just that: 
c'(f') = 1/k(c+vcosf');

but due to the clock slow-down effect, which is k-times,
so, the light speed is measured in any real experiment as:

c'(f') = 1/(c+vcosf');

and this is the only correct Lorentz transform
of the light speed in a moving frame.

an average is:
<c'> = c = const.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web