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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #376614 > unrolled thread

Einstein's Special Relativity: The Root of All Evil

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

Contents

  Einstein's Special Relativity: The Root of All Evil Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-20 02:44 -0800
    Re: Einstein's Special Relativity: The Root of All Evil Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-20 06:26 -0800
      Re: Einstein's Special Relativity: The Root of All Evil Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-20 07:04 -0800
        Re: Einstein's Special Relativity: The Root of All Evil Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-20 09:16 -0800
      Re: Einstein's Special Relativity: The Root of All Evil Stzepan Zdrobněliny <stzepan282@guadalajara.org> - 2016-02-20 16:36 +0000
        Re: Einstein's Special Relativity: The Root of All Evil Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-20 18:26 +0100
          Re: Einstein's Special Relativity: The Root of All Evil Stzepan Zdrobněliny <stzepan282@guadalajara.org> - 2016-02-20 17:41 +0000
      Re: Einstein's Special Relativity: The Root of All Evil Stzepan Zdrobněliny <stzepan282@guadalajara.org> - 2016-02-20 17:50 +0000
        Re: Einstein's Special Relativity: The Root of All Evil Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2016-02-20 19:05 +0100
    Re: Einstein's Special Relativity: The Root of All Evil Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-21 10:25 -0800
      Re: Einstein's Special Relativity: The Root of All Evil Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-13 01:17 -0800
        Re: Einstein's Special Relativity: The Root of All Evil Iephthae Sparrow <yvosp@gideoncloud.net> - 2016-03-13 11:43 +0000
        Re: Einstein's Special Relativity: The Root of All Evil Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-13 10:32 -0700

#376614 — Einstein's Special Relativity: The Root of All Evil

http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-Speculation/dp/0738205257 
 Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light, p. 250: "Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafés in South Kensington or Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL WAS CLEARLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY. All these paradoxes resulted from well known effects such as length contraction, time dilation, or E=mc^2, all basic predictions of special relativity. And all denied the possibility of establishing a well-defined border, common to all observers, capable of containing new quantum gravitational effects."

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22730370-600-why-do-we-move-forwards-in-time/ 
 "[George] Ellis is up against one of the most successful theories in physics: special relativity. It revealed that there's no such thing as objective simultaneity. Although you might have seen three things happen in a particular order ? ?A, then B, then C ? someone moving ?at a different velocity could have seen ?it a different way ? C, then B, then A. ?In other words, without simultaneity there is no way of specifying what things happened "now". And if not "now", what is moving through time? Rescuing an objective "now" is a daunting task."

https://edge.org/response-detail/25477 
 What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime... (...) The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/jun/10/time-reborn-farewell-reality-review 
 "And by making the clock's tick relative - what happens simultaneously for one observer might seem sequential to another - Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end, says [Lee] Smolin."

Special relativity is the root of all the evil because a fundamental postulate is false:

http://theconversation.com/how-einsteins-general-theory-of-relativity-killed-off-common-sense-physics-50042 
 "At the center of Einstein's theories is the fact that the speed of light is independent of the motion of the observer..." 

The speed of light cannot be independent of the motion of the observer. If it was, then there would be no reasonable explanation for the fact that the frequency measured by the observer shifts from f=c/λ to f'=(c+v)/λ when the observer starts moving with speed v towards the light source. The only reasonable explanation is this: 

The frequency measured by the observer shifts from f=c/λ to f'=(c+v)/λ because the speed of the light relative to the observer shifts from c to c'=c+v, in violation of Einstein's relativity.

The only explanation that can save Einstein's relativity is obviously idiotic:

The frequency measured by the observer shifts from f=c/λ to f'=(c+v)/λ because the motion of the observer somehow changes the wavelength of the incoming light. In order for the speed of the light to remain constant (and Einstein's relativity to be gloriously saved), the motion of the observer must force the wavelength of the incoming light to shift from λ to λ'=λc/(c+v). 

Pentcho Valev

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#376623

On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 3:44:04 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> The speed of light cannot be independent of the motion of the observer.

Unfortunately for Puerile Pentcho, copious EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE shows that
his "logic" is wrong.

> If it was, then there would be no reasonable explanation for the fact
> that the frequency measured by the observer shifts from f=c/λ to
> f'=(c+v)/λ when the observer starts moving with speed v towards the
> light source.

But it DOESN'T shift to f'=(c+v)/λ.  It shifts to f'=c/λ'.  If Pernicious
Pentcho were to follow the EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE, he would understand
that the speed of light NOT changing requires that λ MUST change ... and
EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE also demonstrates that λ DOES INDEED change.  But
Poor Perverse Pigheaded Pentcho repudiates rationality.

> The only explanation

is that Pentcho is a few fries short of a happy meal.

Gary

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

#376624

On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 4:26:46 PM UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 3:44:04 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> > If it was, then there would be no reasonable explanation for the fact
> > that the frequency measured by the observer shifts from f=c/λ to
> > f'=(c+v)/λ when the observer starts moving with speed v towards the
> > light source.
> 
> But it DOESN'T shift to f'=(c+v)/λ.  It shifts to f'=c/λ'.

http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/roger/PHYS10302/lecture18.pdf 
 Roger Barlow, Professor of Particle Physics: "The Doppler effect - changes in frequencies when sources or observers are in motion - is familiar to anyone who has stood at the roadside and watched (and listened) to the cars go by. It applies to all types of wave, not just sound. (...) Moving Observer. Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer is moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/λ waves pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/λ. So f'=(c+v)/λ. (...) Relativistic Doppler Effect (...) If the source is regarded as fixed and the observer is moving, then the observer's clock runs slow. They will measure time intervals as being shorter than they are in the rest frame of the source, and so they will measure frequencies as being higher, again by a γ factor: f'=(1+v/c)γf..."

That is, according to Roger Barlow,

f' = (c+v)/λ

when v is low (relativistic corrections are negligible), and

f' = (1+v/c)γf = γ(c+v)/λ

when v is high.

Pentcho Valev

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

#376641

On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 8:04:07 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 4:26:46 PM UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 3:44:04 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > >
> > > If it was, then there would be no reasonable explanation for the fact
> > > that the frequency measured by the observer shifts from f=c/λ to
> > > f'=(c+v)/λ when the observer starts moving with speed v towards the
> > > light source.
> > 
> > But it DOESN'T shift to f'=(c+v)/λ.  It shifts to f'=c/λ'.
> 
> http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/roger/PHYS10302/lecture18.pdf 
>  Roger Barlow, Professor of Particle Physics: "The Doppler effect -
> changes in frequencies when sources or observers are in motion - is
> familiar to anyone who has stood at the roadside and watched (and
> listened) to the cars go by. It applies to all types of wave, not just
> sound.

Yes, the DOPPLER effect applies to all types of waves; however, technically,
light is NOT a wave, nor is it a particle.  It may be APPROXIMATED by either
in the appropriate circumstance.

> (...) Moving Observer. Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer
> is moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/λ waves pass a
> fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/λ. So f'=(c+v)/λ. (...)

Since the "observer" is specified as MOVING, then in what frame is this
"measurement" being made?  Obviously in the frame of the MEDIUM!  Where is
the "medium" for light?

> "Relativistic Doppler Effect (...) If the source is regarded as fixed and
> the observer is moving,

Once again, the sophistry enters the picture.  With respect to whom is the
observer moving?  From previous animations, it's a second (unmentioned)
observer who is stationary wrt the source.  We already KNOW what the
wavelength, frequency and speed is wrt source.

> then the observer's clock runs slow.

Actually, it doesn't.  It only APPEARS to run slow as measured by the second
observer.

> "They will measure time intervals as being shorter than they are in the
> rest frame of the source, and so they will measure frequencies as being
> higher, again by a γ factor: f'=(1+v/c)γf..."
> 
> That is, according to Roger Barlow,
> 
> f' = (c+v)/λ

He did NOT say that.  Stop putting your false words in his mouth.
Your equation is completely false because MEASUREMENT refutes it.

> when v is low (relativistic corrections are negligible), and
> 
> f' = (1+v/c)γf = γ(c+v)/λ
> 
> when v is high.
> 
> Pentcho Valev

Baloney repeated is still baloney.  MEASURENT refutes your dishonest claim.

Gary

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

#376637

Gary Harnagel wrote:

> On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 3:44:04 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>>
>> The speed of light cannot be independent of the motion of the observer.
> 
> Unfortunately for Puerile Pentcho, copious EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE shows
> that his "logic" is wrong.

Even the Electric Universe Theory appears more right than Relativity, GR, 
SR, Spacetime, whatever Modern Science you may come up with. Thanks, you 
are a jolly good fellow.

Wal Thornhill: An Examination of "Gravitational Waves" | Space News 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3Hoax81rkI

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

#376644

The ’nym-shifting troll posted as "Stzepan Zdrobněliny":

> Gary Harnagel wrote:
>> On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 3:44:04 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>>> The speed of light cannot be independent of the motion of the observer.
>> Unfortunately for Puerile Pentcho, copious EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE shows
>> that his "logic" is wrong.
> 
> Even the Electric Universe Theory appears more right than Relativity, GR,
> SR, Spacetime, whatever Modern Science you may come up with. Thanks, you
> are a jolly good fellow.
> 
> Wal Thornhill: An Examination of "Gravitational Waves" | Space News
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3Hoax81rkI

<http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/electric_universe/thunderboltgods_c.htm>
| 
| Wallace Thornhill earned a degree in physics and electronics at the 
| University of Melbourne, Australia, and began postgraduate studies. Before 
| entering university he had been inspired by Immanuel Velikovsky’s best-
| selling book, Worlds in Collision. However, the lack of curiosity and the 
| frequent hostility toward this challenge to mainstream science convinced 
| Thornhill to pursue an independent path outside academia. 

In English: Wa(llace) Thornhill has always been or has turned into a 
crackpot who *therefore* could not make it in academia, and the “Electric 
Universe” is just pseudo-science.

See also:

<http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Electric_Universe> pp.

“Tim Thompson Responds to Thornhill on the matter of the Electric Star 
Hypothesis” <http://www.tim-thompson.com/grey-areas.html>


*PLONK*


PointedEars
-- 
A neutron walks into a bar and inquires how much a drink costs.
The bartender replies, "For you? No charge."

(from: WolframAlpha)

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

#376649

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

>> Even the Electric Universe Theory appears more right than Relativity,
>> GR,
>> SR, Spacetime, whatever Modern Science you may come up with. Thanks,
>> you are a jolly good fellow.
>> 
>> Wal Thornhill: An Examination of "Gravitational Waves" | Space News
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3Hoax81rkI
> 
> <http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/electric_universe/
thunderboltgods_c.htm>
> |
> | Wallace Thornhill earned a degree in physics and electronics at the |
> University of Melbourne, Australia, and began postgraduate studies.

Impressing. This is much more than you can proclaim of yourself.

> In English: Wa(llace) Thornhill has always been or has turned into a
> crackpot who *therefore* could not make it in academia, and the
> “Electric Universe” is just pseudo-science.

The post is not about the Electric Universe, you stupid Pointedhead. Can't 
you read?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sULjMjK5lCI

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

#376652

Gary Harnagel wrote:

>> The only explanation
> 
> is that Pentcho is a few fries short of a happy meal.

Those fries are indestructible anyway. Because is written, your dishes 
will be full, but the food will not be edible.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKwcqUMCvEQ&t=3m56s

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

#376655

On Sat, 20 Feb 2016 17:50:30 +0000 (UTC), Stzepan Zdrobn?liny
<stzepan282@guadalajara.org> wrote:

>Gary Harnagel wrote:
>
>>> The only explanation
>> 
>> is that Pentcho is a few fries short of a happy meal.
>
>Those fries are indestructible anyway. Because is written, your dishes 
>will be full, but the food will not be edible.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKwcqUMCvEQ&t=3m56s


Life is an illusion, life is a myth:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Berkeley

"Berkeley argued that forces and gravity, as defined by Newton,
constituted "occult qualities" that "expressed nothing distinctly"".
"Berkeley thus concluded that forces lay beyond any kind of empirical
observation and could not be a part of proper science".

w.

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

#376784

Poincaré and Ritz would have saved physics from Einstein but both died prematurely:

http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/poincare.htm 
 Henri Poincaré: "Lorentz could have accounted for the facts by supposing that the velocity of light is greater in the direction of the earth's motion [c'=c+v : the emission theory's postulate!] than in the perpendicular direction. He preferred to admit that the velocity is the same in the two directions, but that bodies are smaller in the former than in the latter."

http://ritz-btr.narod.ru/martinez2004pip6.pdf 
 "In sum, Einstein rejected the emission hypothesis prior to 1905 not because of any direct empirical evidence against it, but because it seemed to involve too many theoretical and mathematical complications. By contrast, Ritz was impressed by the lack of empirical evidence against the emission hypothesis, and he was not deterred by the mathematical difficulties it involved. It seemed to Ritz far more reasonable to assume, in the interest of the "economy" of scientific concepts, that the speed of light depends on the speed of its source, like any other projectile, rather than to assume or believe, with Einstein, that its speed is independent of the motion of its source even though it is not a wave in a medium; that nothing can go faster than light; that the length and mass of any body varies with its velocity; that there exist no rigid bodies; that duration and simultaneity are relative concepts; that the basic parallelogram law for the addition of velocities is not exactly valid; and so forth. Ritz commented that "it is a curious thing, worthy of remark, that only a few years ago one would have thought it sufficient to refute a theory to show that it entails even one or another of these consequences..." (...) Two months after Ritz's death, in September 1909, his exchange with Einstein barely echoed at a meeting of the Deutsche Naturforscher und Ärtze in Salzburg, where Einstein delivered a lecture elaborating his views on the radiation problem but made no explicit reference to Ritz's views. Two years later, however, in November 1911, Paul Ehrenfest wrote a paper comparing Einstein's views on light propagation with those of Ritz. Ehrenfest noted that although both approaches involved a particulate description of light, Ritz's theory constituted a "real" emission theory (in the Newtonian sense), while Einstein's was more akin to the ether conception since it postulated that the velocity of light is independent of the velocity of its source. (...) Ritz's emission theory garnered hardly any supporters, at least none who would develop it or express support for it in print. As noted above, in 1911, two years after Ritz's death, Ehrenfest wrote a paper contrasting Ritz's and Einstein's theories, to which Einstein responded in several letters, trying in vain to convince him that the emission hypothesis should be rejected. Then Ehrenfest became Lorentz's successor at Leiden, and in his inaugural lecture in December 1912, he argued dramatically for the need to decide between Lorentz's and Einstein's theories, on the one hand, and Ritz's on the other. After 1913, however, Ehrenfest no longer advocated Ritz's theory. Ehrenfest and Ritz had been close friends since their student days, Ehrenfest having admired Ritz immensely as his superior in physics and mathematics; but following Ritz's death, Einstein came to play that role, as he and Ehrenfest became close friends."

Pentcho Valev

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

#378798

A debate has just started here:

http://www.debate.org/opinions/do-you-think-einstein-should-have-been-awarded-the-nobel-prize-for-his-work-on-relativity 
 "Do you think Einstein should have been awarded the Nobel Prize for his work on relativity?"

I voted NO of course. Here is my argument (in case it gets deleted):

EINSTEIN KILLED PHYSICS Einstein's 1905 second postulate was false - actually the speed of light does depend on the speed of the light source. He camouflaged the falsehood by disfiguring space and time, and so physics became the Harry Potter science as we know it today (moving object gets shorter, traveling twin returns younger etc.).

Pentcho Valev

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

#378807

Pentcho Valev wrote:

>  "Do you think Einstein should have been awarded the Nobel Prize for his
>  work on relativity?"
> 
> I voted NO of course. Here is my argument (in case it gets deleted):
> 
> EINSTEIN KILLED PHYSICS Einstein's 1905 second postulate was false -
> actually the speed of light does depend on the speed of the light
> source. He camouflaged the falsehood by disfiguring space and time, and
> so physics became the Harry Potter science as we know it today (moving
> object gets shorter, traveling twin returns younger etc.).

You are radically correct here. That space time in 1905 was wrong and is 
been corrected in 1915. In fact, there is no spacetime in 1905, but 
Aether, which works fine even today. Because the AETHER, WE HAVE radios, 
tv, internet, bluetooth, gps etc etc.

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

#378843

On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 3:17:50 AM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> A debate has just started here:
> 
> http://www.debate.org/opinions/do-you-think-einstein-should-have-been-awarded-the-nobel-prize-for-his-work-on-relativity 
>  "Do you think Einstein should have been awarded the Nobel Prize for his
> work on relativity?"
> 
> I voted NO of course. Here is my argument (in case it gets deleted):
> 
> EINSTEIN KILLED PHYSICS Einstein's 1905 second postulate was false -
> actually the speed of light does depend on the speed of the light source.

False.  Many, many confirmations exist and there are no valid refutations.

> He camouflaged the falsehood by disfiguring space and time, and so physics
> became the Harry Potter science as we know it today (moving object gets
> shorter, traveling twin returns younger etc.).
> 
> Pentcho Valev

Bogus and delusional nonsense.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web