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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #361488 > unrolled thread

THE INCREDIBLE VULNERABILITY OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

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

Contents

  THE INCREDIBLE VULNERABILITY OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-21 16:37 -0700
    Re: THE INCREDIBLE VULNERABILITY OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-21 18:25 -0700
    Re: THE INCREDIBLE VULNERABILITY OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY pixel_a_ted <pixel_a_ted@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-21 18:45 -0700
      Re: THE INCREDIBLE VULNERABILITY OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY pixel_a_ted <pixel_a_ted@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-22 06:28 -0700
        Re: THE INCREDIBLE VULNERABILITY OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-22 06:43 -0700
          Re: THE INCREDIBLE VULNERABILITY OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-08-22 10:55 -0500
            Re: THE INCREDIBLE VULNERABILITY OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY Karolina Vandeweghe <newisa@kerseyhouse.au> - 2015-08-22 16:03 +0000
            Re: THE INCREDIBLE VULNERABILITY OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-08-22 20:18 +0200
            Re: THE INCREDIBLE VULNERABILITY OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-22 12:06 -0700
            Re: THE INCREDIBLE VULNERABILITY OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-22 19:55 -0700
              Re: THE INCREDIBLE VULNERABILITY OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-08-23 20:07 -0500
                Re: THE INCREDIBLE VULNERABILITY OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-23 19:44 -0700
        Re: THE INCREDIBLE VULNERABILITY OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-08-22 20:16 +0200
    Re: THE INCREDIBLE VULNERABILITY OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-22 00:16 -0700
      Re: THE INCREDIBLE VULNERABILITY OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 00:47 -0700
        Re: THE INCREDIBLE VULNERABILITY OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY Karolina Vandeweghe <newisa@kerseyhouse.au> - 2015-08-22 16:42 +0000
          Re: THE INCREDIBLE VULNERABILITY OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-08-24 12:09 -0700
      Re: THE INCREDIBLE VULNERABILITY OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-22 06:07 -0700
        Re: THE INCREDIBLE VULNERABILITY OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY Karolina Vandeweghe <newisa@kerseyhouse.au> - 2015-08-22 17:12 +0000
      Re: THE INCREDIBLE VULNERABILITY OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-22 14:40 -0700

#361488 — THE INCREDIBLE VULNERABILITY OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

A stationary light source emits a series of pulses the distance between which is d (e.g. d = 300000 km). A stationary receiver, which is just a clock registering the time of arrival of the pulses, measures the frequency to be f = c/d: 

http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_static.gif 

The receiver starts moving with speed v towards the light source - the measured frequency shifts from f = c/d to f' = (c+v)/d: 

http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_detector_blue.gif 

Question: Why does the frequency shift from f = c/d to f' = (c+v)/d ? 

Answer 1 (fatal for Einstein's relativity): Because the speed of the pulses relative to the receiver shifts from c to c' = c+v.

Answer 2 (possibly saving Einstein's relativity): Because... 

There is no reasonable statement that could become Answer 2. 

Pentcho Valev

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#361491

On Friday, August 21, 2015 at 5:37:04 PM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> [Regurgitated delusional nonsense]

Hahahahaha!

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

#361492

On FriOn Friday, August 21, 2015 at 7:37:04 PM UTC-4, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> The receiver starts moving with speed v towards the light source - the measured frequency shifts from f = c/d to f' = (c+v)/d: 

Answer 2: You are stipulating as fact something that is not true. The moving observer sees a constant speed of light, a length contracted wavelength hence a higher frequency.

Consider it from the frame of reference of the observer with the light source is moving toward him. It emits light with a speed c and because each cycle  is emitted closer to the preceding one compared to when the source was at rest, the wavelength is shorter. Therefore the observer sees a higher frequency light.

In both cases, the effect is explained with a constant speed of light.

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

#361523

On Friday, August 21, 2015 at 9:45:16 PM UTC-4, pixel_a_ted wrote:
> Answer 2: You are stipulating as fact something that is not true. The moving observer sees a constant speed of light, a length contracted wavelength hence a higher frequency.
> 
Legitimate question - couldn't my reasoning here also apply to the case where the observer is moving away from the source and thus argue for a higher frequency in that case also?

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

#361525

On Saturday, August 22, 2015 at 7:28:34 AM UTC-6, pixel_a_ted wrote:
>
> On Friday, August 21, 2015 at 9:45:16 PM UTC-4, pixel_a_ted wrote:
> >
> > Answer 2: You are stipulating as fact something that is not true. The
> > moving observer sees a constant speed of light, a length contracted
> > wavelength hence a higher frequency.
> 
> Legitimate question - couldn't my reasoning here also apply to the case
> where the observer is moving away from the source and thus argue for a
> higher frequency in that case also?

You are becoming wise.  Non-simultaneity (length contraction/time dilation)
is a second-order effect in velocity, but frequency/wavelength is a FIRST-
order effect.  The first-order effect is the consequence of E's first
postulate (hey, first order, first postulate; second order, second
postulate :-)

Gary

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

#361529

On 8/22/15 8/22/15   8:43 AM, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Saturday, August 22, 2015 at 7:28:34 AM UTC-6, pixel_a_ted wrote:
>> On Friday, August 21, 2015 at 9:45:16 PM UTC-4, pixel_a_ted wrote:
>>> Answer 2: You are stipulating as fact something that is not true. The
>>> moving observer sees a constant speed of light, a length contracted
>>> wavelength hence a higher frequency.
>> Legitimate question - couldn't my reasoning here also apply to the case
>> where the observer is moving away from the source and thus argue for a
>> higher frequency in that case also?

No, because the Doppler shift is primarily due to the relativity of 
simultaneity, not "length contraction".

	"Length contraction" is indeed symmetric as you point out.
	But the relativity of simultaneity enters in first order
	and is generally much larger.


> Non-simultaneity (length contraction/time dilation)
> is a second-order effect in velocity,

No. The relativity of simultaneity is FIRST ORDER in relative velocity:
	dt' = g (dt - v dx)
It is due to the v, not the g: dt' can be nonzero while dt=0.

"Length contraction" and "time dilation" are indeed second order in v. They 
involve relativity of simultaneity, but really occur due to a rather unexpected 
cancellation between gamma and the product of two first-order effects.

	Write the spatial Lorentz transform in terms of intervals:
		dx' = g (dx - v dt)
	one might NAIVELY expect that dx' would be greater than dx
	(because g > 1) -- "length expansion". In fact this is true
	when the measurement is made SIMULTANEOUSLY IN T (i.e. dt = 0).
	But that is MIXING FRAMES, which is invalid -- the measurement
	of a length in the primed frame MUST be made simultaneously in
	t', and when one works it out one finds "length contraction"
	as expected; the cancellation I mentioned above makes it
	proportional to 1/g.


> but frequency/wavelength is a FIRST-
> order effect.

Yes, the Doppler shift is first order in v. There is a "relativistic correction" 
that is second order in v (from g), so it is not quite the same as the classical 
Doppler shift....


Tom Roberts

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

#361531

Tom Roberts wrote:

>>> Legitimate question - couldn't my reasoning here also apply to the
>>> case where the observer is moving away from the source and thus argue
>>> for a higher frequency in that case also?
> 
> No, because the Doppler shift is primarily due to the relativity of
> simultaneity, not "length contraction".
> 
> 	"Length contraction" is indeed symmetric as you point out.
> 	But the relativity of simultaneity enters in first order and is
> 	generally much larger.

Of course he is wrong. The contraction of the length is not even LINEARLY 
coupled, much less being "symmetric". Not knowing this thing reveals that 
he was not aware he didn't understand Relativity, in contrast that he 
postulate the opposite. This is as certain as it can be.

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

#361542

Użytkownik "Tom Roberts"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:-qydnUrcj-zqBkXInZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com...

On 8/22/15 8/22/15   8:43 AM, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Saturday, August 22, 2015 at 7:28:34 AM UTC-6, pixel_a_ted wrote:
>> On Friday, August 21, 2015 at 9:45:16 PM UTC-4, pixel_a_ted wrote:
>>> Answer 2: You are stipulating as fact something that is not true. The
>>> moving observer sees a constant speed of light, a length contracted
>>> wavelength hence a higher frequency.
>> Legitimate question - couldn't my reasoning here also apply to the case
>> where the observer is moving away from the source and thus argue for a
>> higher frequency in that case also?

|No, because the Doppler shift is primarily due to the relativity of
|simultaneity, not "length contraction".

According to Great Guru's own definition of time,
there is no such thing, however. and the rest of
Tom's sad mumble is worthless too.

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

#361549

On Saturday, August 22, 2015 at 6:55:38 PM UTC+3, Tom Roberts wrote:
> 
> the Doppler shift is primarily due to the relativity of 
> simultaneity

What has happened to you, Clever Roberts? Even the insects on this forum - e.g. Gary Harnagel or kefischer - would tell you that this is an idiocy. Let us ask them:

Gary Harnagel, kefischer, Odd Bodkin, is the Doppler shift primarily due to the relativity of simultaneity?

Let us ask the zombies as well:

Dirk van Moortel, Paul Andersen, is the Doppler shift primarily due to the relativity of simultaneity?

Pentcho Valev

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

#361587

On Saturday, August 22, 2015 at 9:55:38 AM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote:
>
> On 8/22/15 8/22/15   8:43 AM, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > Non-simultaneity (length contraction/time dilation)
> > is a second-order effect in velocity,
> 
> No. The relativity of simultaneity is FIRST ORDER in relative velocity:
> 	dt' = g (dt - v dx)
> It is due to the v, not the g: dt' can be nonzero while dt=0.

Hi Tom,

So for dx = c*dt, dt' = g*(1 - v/c) = sqrt[(1 - v/c)/(1 + v/c)], which
gives the relativistic Doppler equation and is essentially first order.

This works out the same for dx' = g*(dx - v*t).  Ver-r-r-ry good.  What
about my argument using the Principle of Relativity (the receiver is
always "at rest") to derive the classical Doppler equation?  That gives
first order also without using the LT and RoS, does it not?

Gary

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

#361642

On 8/22/15 8/22/15   9:55 PM, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Saturday, August 22, 2015 at 9:55:38 AM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote:
>> On 8/22/15 8/22/15   8:43 AM, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>>> Non-simultaneity (length contraction/time dilation)
>>> is a second-order effect in velocity,
>> No. The relativity of simultaneity is FIRST ORDER in relative velocity:
>> 	dt' = g (dt - v dx)
>> It is due to the v, not the g: dt' can be nonzero while dt=0.
>
> So for dx = c*dt, dt' = g*(1 - v/c) = sqrt[(1 - v/c)/(1 + v/c)], which
> gives the relativistic Doppler equation and is essentially first order.

	(You omitted the dt on the right of the last two equations.)

Be VERY careful about what the symbols mean, as it is easy to get confused here. 
And be careful about which quantities are held fixed -- to measure the frequency 
of a wave in the primed frame (or its period dt'), dx' must be zero, not dx.


> This works out the same for dx' = g*(dx - v*t).  Ver-r-r-ry good.  What
> about my argument using the Principle of Relativity (the receiver is
> always "at rest") to derive the classical Doppler equation?  That gives
> first order also without using the LT and RoS, does it not?

I greatly dislike saying any observer is "at rest", because that phrase carries 
a lot of baggage that is simply not valid in relativity. Say instead that an 
observer can always use the coordinates of the inertial frame in which she is at 
rest (add "locally" for GR).

Yes the classical equations give the Doppler formula for frequency, to first 
order in v/c. Whether they give the Doppler formula for wavelength depends on 
detail which formulas you use. Of course if you use the formula for frequency, 
and force the speed to be c in each frame, λ=c/f will yield the wavelength to 
first order.


Tom Roberts

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

#361645

On Sunday, August 23, 2015 at 7:07:35 PM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote:
>
> On 8/22/15 8/22/15   9:55 PM, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > So for dx = c*dt, dt' = g*(1 - v/c) = sqrt[(1 - v/c)/(1 + v/c)], which
> > gives the relativistic Doppler equation and is essentially first order.
> 
> 	(You omitted the dt on the right of the last two equations.)

Oops!  I am careless!

> Be VERY careful about what the symbols mean, as it is easy to get
> confused here. And be careful about which quantities are held fixed
> -- to measure the frequency of a wave in the primed frame (or its
> period dt'), dx' must be zero, not dx.
> 
> > This works out the same for dx' = g*(dx - v*t).  Ver-r-r-ry good.  What
> > about my argument using the Principle of Relativity (the receiver is
> > always "at rest") to derive the classical Doppler equation?  That gives
> > first order also without using the LT and RoS, does it not?
> 
> I greatly dislike saying any observer is "at rest", because that phrase
> carries a lot of baggage that is simply not valid in relativity. Say
> instead that an observer can always use the coordinates of the inertial
> frame in which she is at rest (add "locally" for GR).

My objection to the Einstein-online site was that they had an animation
where the receiver was moving toward a stationary source, but that means
the observer was in the frame of the source so it didn't represent what
the receiver measured, contrary to Prevaricating Pentcho's obfuscations.

> Yes the classical equations give the Doppler formula for frequency, to
> first order in v/c. Whether they give the Doppler formula for wavelength
> depends on detail which formulas you use. Of course if you use the formula
> for frequency, and force the speed to be c in each frame, λ=c/f will yield
> the wavelength to first order.
> 
> 
> Tom Roberts

Thanks, Tom.


Gary

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

#361541

Użytkownik "pixel_a_ted"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:a082e4d9-d692-41e5-8d86-00aebdf299fe@googlegroups.com...

On Friday, August 21, 2015 at 9:45:16 PM UTC-4, pixel_a_ted wrote:
> Answer 2: You are stipulating as fact something that is not true. The 
> moving observer sees a constant speed of light, a length contracted 
> wavelength hence a higher frequency.
>
|Legitimate question - couldn't my reasoning here also apply to the case 
where the observer is moving away from the source and thus argue for a 
higher frequency in that case also?

Forget it. Physicist's tales about observers didn't match reality
even in Galileo's time. Now they're not worthy even laugh.

If You want to know anything about observer, You should
know, how a brain works. It's not physics. 

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

#361507

In my previous posting I said that no reasonable statement can become Answer 2 and save Einstein's relativity. Yet there is an idiotic one that Einsteinians advance sometimes (rarely indeed - it sounds too idiotic even in the schizophrenic atmosphere of Divine Albert's world). So I am resubmitting my posting, with the idiotic statement added:

A stationary light source emits a series of pulses the distance between which is d (e.g. d = 300000 km). A stationary receiver, which is just a clock registering the time of arrival of the pulses, measures the frequency to be f = c/d: 

http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_static.gif 

The receiver starts moving with speed v towards the light source - the measured frequency shifts from f = c/d to f' = (c+v)/d: 

http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_detector_blue.gif 

Question: Why does the frequency shift from f = c/d to f' = (c+v)/d ? 

Answer 1 (fatal for Einstein's relativity): Because the speed of the pulses relative to the receiver shifts from c to c' = c+v. 

Answer 2 (idiotic but saves Einstein's relativity): Because the motion of the receiver changes the distance between subsequent pulses - the distance shifts from d to d' = cd/(c+v).

Here is an analogous change of the wavelength that can only occur in Einstein's schizophrenic world:

http://lewebpedagogique.com/physique/files/p8044_37aa292833de8bd2b5c4583ffb76cf69p866_a910dac1b2c66fe5536711394c0cd778doppler_p.gif 

Pentcho Valev

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

#361513

On Saturday, August 22, 2015 at 12:16:50 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> In my previous posting I said that no reasonable statement can become Answer 2 and save Einstein's relativity. 

Alice in Wonderland.

--
Jan

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

#361535

*_JanPB_* wrote:

> On Saturday, August 22, 2015 at 12:16:50 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>> In my previous posting I said that no reasonable statement can become
>> Answer 2 and save Einstein's relativity.
> 
> Alice in Wonderland.

No, that's Quantum Physics. Ie instantaneous state transitions (infinite 
speeds). Etc.

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

#361733

On Saturday, August 22, 2015 at 9:42:30 AM UTC-7, Karolina Vandeweghe wrote:
> *_JanPB_* wrote:
> 
> > On Saturday, August 22, 2015 at 12:16:50 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> >> In my previous posting I said that no reasonable statement can become
> >> Answer 2 and save Einstein's relativity.
> > 
> > Alice in Wonderland.
> 
> No, that's Quantum Physics. Ie instantaneous state transitions (infinite 
> speeds). Etc.

We are not talking about quantum phenomena here.

--
Jan

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

#361522

On Saturday, August 22, 2015 at 1:16:50 AM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> A stationary light source emits a series of pulses the distance between
> which is d (e.g. d = 300000 km). A stationary receiver, which is just a
> clock registering the time of arrival of the pulses, measures the frequency
> to be f = c/d: 
> 
> http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_static.gif 
> 
> The receiver starts moving with speed v towards the light source

Poppycock!  The Principle of Relativity proclaims that ANY observer (i.e.,
the "receiver" in this case) may consider himself to be at rest.  Thus the
light source is the thing doing the moving, so the correct situation is

http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler

> Question: Why does the frequency shift from f = c/d to f' = (c+v)/d ? 
> 
> Answer 1 (fatal for Einstein's relativity): Because the speed of the pulses relative to the receiver shifts from c to c' = c+v. 
> 
> Answer 2 (idiotic but saves Einstein's relativity): Because the motion of
> the receiver changes the distance between subsequent pulses - the distance
> shifts from d to d' = cd/(c+v).

This fails Sagan's baloney detector test:  Offering only two options,
neither of which is correct.  The correct reason was given above:  The
observer NEVER moves in inertial systems.  Certainly, if there were a
detectable aether, one could consider the observer moving wrt that
medium.  But there's not, so Pentcho's puzzlement produces poppycock.

Gary

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

#361536

*_Gary Harnagel_* wrote:

> Poppycock!  The Principle of Relativity proclaims that ANY observer
> (i.e.,
> the "receiver" in this case) may consider himself to be at rest.  Thus
> the light source is the thing doing the moving, so the correct situation
> is

Pentcho is perfectly right. An emitter cannot be a receiver, cockpoppy. 
Want me to elaborate?

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

#361572

The deranged Einsteinian demonstrates how both the speed of light (relative to the detector) and the frequency vary with the speed of the detector and then explains that only the frequency varies (the speed of the light doesn't): 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EVzUyE2oD1w 
 Dr Ricardo Eusebi: "f'=f(1+v/c). Light frequency is relative to the observer. The velocity is not though. The velocity is the same in all the reference frames."

In Einstein's schizophrenic world the old principle of Ignatius of Loyola is valid and Einsteinians obey it: 

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

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web