Einsteins special relativity nonsense

@layman,

Assume there is an emitter of light which sends a flash every second.

If you are not moving with respect to it, you will "see" (receive) one flash per second. But if you are moving towards it, you will see flashes more frequently than one per second.

That's NOT because the frequency of the emitter has changed. It hasn't. Not in the least.

Why do you "see" it differently? Because you are moving, NOT because the frequency of flashes has changed.

0 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

Quote:
But to sum up, it's not 'phenomenological.' It's wave-compression or expansion.

No, the waves are NOT being compressed or expanded. You only perceive them that way because you are moving.

If I am moving away from you, you will "get smaller" in my perspective with each passing minute.

If I am moving toward you, you will "get larger" in my perspective with each passing minute.

But that is only due to my perception, which changes with motion.

At no time to you actually get any smaller or larger, my subjective perceptions notwithstanding.

This ia a very simple point which you seem utterly incapable of comprehending.

But there is no difference between light that has a certain frequency because of doppler shift and light that has the same frequency due to it being emitted at that frequency by its source.

It's the same with doppler-shifted sound waves. If a chorus of singers is moving toward you so that the C note they are singing shifts to C#, you will hear them singing in C# and if you sing in C, your singing will be flat. As far as you are concerned, they are singing in C# and not C.

Now you can extrapolate that they are singing in C and the doppler shift is causing you to register a C#, but in your frame of reference, the sound waves that are reaching you are truly C# frequency and not C.

It's the same with light. If you have something that only absorbs orange light and not yellow, and yellow light from a distant source has redshifted to orange, your absorber will absorb the orange and if you tried shining yellow light on it that matches the original frequency of the light at the source, it would reflect off the absorber and not get absorbed. I.e. it has physically shifted to orange, not phenomenologically.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

As far as you are concerned, they are singing in C# and not C.

They are, ex hypothesis, ACTUALLY singing in C, not C#.

You say "as far as I am concerned," but you don't let my "concern" go too far, do you?

If I took into account the relative motion between us, I would KNOW that they are singing in C, not C#. Put another way, after that, they would be singing in C, "as far as I'm concerned." They can "appear" to be singing in C#, when they are ACTUALLY singing in C. Since I'm not entirely stupid, I can know that.

Not coincidentally, this is the same error which SR deliberately induces you to make. But "induces" isn't really the right word. It FORCES you to make the error. It forces you to ignore and remain entirely oblivious of your own motion.

2 Replies

I haven't been able to see anything since page 25.....well, I can, but then I'd have to read comments from life forms I choose to ignore.

2 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Still having trouble, Brandon?

OK, I guess I'll just have to "solve" the problem for you.

A will impute ALL of the relative motion to B, and not a single mile an hour to himself. He will say that B is travelling at .6c, not him.

Just to be clear, I will give another couple of instances of A applying the LT formula.

1. A spots another object, C. He discerns that the relative speed between them is .5c. Once again, he will say that C is moving at .5c, and that he is motionless.

2. A spots yet another object, D. He discerns that the relative speed between them is .4c. Once again, he will say that D is moving at .4c, and that he is motionless.

3. A will make the same allocation to each and every object in the universe which is moving relative to him. He will always treat himself as motionless.

By "he" and "him" I really just mean the mathematical formula which SR requires him to apply, of course.

Comprende?

B will do the same when he is applying the formula. That is, he will impute all the relative motion to the other guy.

Now we can get to the last question posed in my original post:

Quote:

But both are "correct," because both are motionless, right?

If you say "yes," then forget math. You are desperately in need of a course in logic.

What's your answer to that question? Yes, or no?

0 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

If I took into account the relative motion between us, I would KNOW that they are singing in C, not C#. Put another way, after that, they would be singing in C, "as far as I'm concerned." They can "appear" to be singing in C#, when they are ACTUALLY singing in C. Since I'm not entirely stupid, I can know that.

Not coincidentally, this is the same error which SR deliberately induces you to make. But "induces" isn't really the right word. It FORCES you to make the error. It forces you to ignore and remain entirely oblivious of your own motion.

Does any sane person really think that, if I look at something which is, say, 10 light years away, then my observation can actually effect some kind of physical change in that object?

Well, yes and no. I say "no," nobody would think that. But relativists do implicitly think that. Then again, maybe they're not sane.

Let's say you and I are standing face to face and I perceive you to be 6' tall. Then you begin walking away from me. When you do that, the sensory images of you which are reaching my eyeballs get smaller and smaller. At some point the image of you which I am receiving will only be one inch "high." A little later, you will disappear from my sight entirely.

Does that mean that YOU have ceased to exist? Does the whole escapade mean that YOU actually "shrink?"

Of course not. Here's the point, which relativists can't seem to get:

My "observation" of something does not affect what it actually is in the least.

"Reality" is NOT my sense perceptions. Only a solipsist would think otherwise.

A star which is a million years away from me and which is actually 10 times the size of the sun will appear as a mere "speck" to me. Does that make it a "speck?" Do I control what it is by virtue of looking at it?

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

A star which is a million years away from me and which is actually 10 times the size of the sun will appear as a mere "speck" to me. Does that make it a "speck?" Do I control what it is by virtue of looking at it?

Correction: I meant to say "light years," obviously.

0 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

Quote:
I have no reason to assume either to be motionless.

You also say:
Quote:
A sees B's clock running slowly. B sees A's clock running slowly.

That conclusion entails certain assumptions.

Brandon, you seem to be suggesting that what you think controls the formula.

In truth, the formula controls what you think, whether you realize it or not.

It doesn't have to be that way. You could, after all, refuse to accept the formula as being "true" in reality.

But you don't. You passively accept the formula as incorporating "truth."

You don't even realize that you are contradicting yourself. You don't understand that the conclusion you draw necessarily makes the very assumptions which you say you "don't have to make."

0 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

Quote:
As far as you are concerned, they are singing in C# and not C.

They are, ex hypothesis, ACTUALLY singing in C, not C#.

I've read many of your posts, and they seem to mostly fixate on declaring whether a shifted time-frame is 'the right time' or 'the shifted time.'

That is an irrelevant issue. It's like arguing over whether the EST time zone or the western time zone is the correct time zone for the USA. It's a purely political issue of asserting territorial primacy, in other words, not a physics issue.

The issue with redshift/timeshift is that energy compresses or dilates depending on where you are relative to what you're observing, and that has ramifications for the relationship between energy-conservation law and time-rate variability. That's all.

Quote:

You say "as far as I am concerned," but you don't let my "concern" go too far, do you?

If I took into account the relative motion between us, I would KNOW that they are singing in C, not C#. Put another way, after that, they would be singing in C, "as far as I'm concerned." They can "appear" to be singing in C#, when they are ACTUALLY singing in C. Since I'm not entirely stupid, I can know that.

But the issue isn't knowing what's happening in their frame for them. We can extrapolate that from knowing about the doppler shift. The issue is understanding how the rate of time can vary with the compression of light.

Put it this way: when you look at a distant galaxy and its redshifted and thus we are observing them as moving at a slower time rate, that should mean that over the course of millennia, entire months or even years have passed for us whose light is still in transit from them to us. So if that keeps happening for millions of years, our two 'present moments' are diverging further and further from each other in time. But for that to be true, you would have to assume we shared a common present moment at some point, which has never been the cause except insofar as the entire universe expands outward from a single point.

If it is, and the universe is indeed expanding, however, then there has never been a time when time was synchronized throughout space. The only way to have totally synchronous time would be to occupy the exact same point in space, but even electrons can't do that as per Pauli's exclusion principle. So, however minute, we are always dealing with variation in the rate of time between any two 'observers, ' whether those observers are subatomic particles moving around molecules or galaxies moving toward or away from each other.

Quote:

Not coincidentally, this is the same error which SR deliberately induces you to make. But "induces" isn't really the right word. It FORCES you to make the error. It forces you to ignore and remain entirely oblivious of your own motion.

Why is that? As I just said, EVERYTHING is in motion. You can only regard things as 'at rest' insofar as they are not moving relative to other things in their own inertial frame, but technically even things within the same inertial frame are made up of moving particles that are not synchronized in their motion, so they are all changing speed and direction relative to each other constantly.

1 Reply

@glitterbag,

glitterbag wrote:

I haven't been able to see anything since page 25.....well, I can, but then I'd have to read comments from life forms I choose to ignore.

Could you start a thread on the power and ethics of shunning/ignoring 'life forms' you hate?

It would be really interesting to read how yours and others' morality and ethics in this regard works.

I am personally bothered by the politics of exclusion and hate, and it amazes me that people who used to argue against exclusion/hate as parts of oppression and discrimination now embrace it as a tactic against those they've deemed enemies of their cause.

So I would like to understand how this all works in your mind. I assume that you plan to shun people into submission or until they go away permanently, if possible; but I would like to know if you have any other possible positive outcomes that you can fathom, such as respecting and honoring the principle of political diversity, freedom of thought/religion/speech; or anything like that.

0 Replies

@livinglava,

Quote:

But the issue isn't knowing what's happening in their frame for them. We can extrapolate that from knowing about the doppler shift. The issue is understanding how the rate of time can vary with the compression of light.

Put it this way: when you look at a distant galaxy and its redshifted and thus we are observing them as moving at a slower time rate...

You do not know, and apparently will never understand, that the doppler shift has nothing to do with so-called "time dilation" (a misnomer) in SR (i.e., "time dilation" caused by speed).

Do some research about it, why doncha?

2 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

Do some research about it, why doncha?

Here, I'll help you with a little head start, eh?

Quote:

Lorentz contraction still confuses people...What we see is what we really see with our eyes or cameras: this has visual perspective, and can contain optical illusions due to the distances of objects, such as the apparently faster-than-light motion seen of matter that is being ejected from some galaxies. "Seeing" can contain the Doppler effect, which is due to changing arrival times of signals at our eyes or measuring gear. ..

When I wish to make an observation of an event or a series of events, I ask all of these observers who make up my frame to record what happens in—and only in—their immediate vicinity for some time interval. Then, later, they send me their observations, which I collate to construct a description of the scenario. This procedure means that I will never been fooled by, say, the Doppler effect. For example, it is still commonly believed (and even taught by some non-physicists) that relativity is all about what is seen: you will find it said that time dilation is all about the fact that when a clock moves away from you, the signals you receive from it are Doppler shifted such that you see it ticking slowly. This is supposed to prove that "moving clocks tick slowly", but is quite wrong.

Relativity says that all moving clocks tick slowly in an inertial frame, but the presence of the Doppler shift is an unnecessary complication when we wish to understand what is going on.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/lorentz.html

Any conclusion about time dilation is SR must first factor out all illusions created by the doppler effect. The doppler effect plays no part in any such calculation. It certainly doesn't "cause" it.

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

You do not know, and apparently will never understand, that the doppler shift has nothing to do with so-called "time dilation" (a misnomer) in SR (i.e., "time dilation" caused by speed).

Do some research about it, why doncha?

Would this be a sufficient source of information to research, iyo?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect

0 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

Any conclusion about time dilation is SR must first factor out all illusions created by the doppler effect. The doppler effect plays no part in any such calculation. It certainly doesn't "cause" it.

Can you just please explain where the energy goes if a moving source of light redshifts or blueshifts relative to an observer?

Bluer frequencies deliver more energy because their wave peaks arrive more frequently. Redder frequencies do the opposite.

If energy is arriving from a source at a faster rate than it is being emitted, then the rates of time between source and receiver have to be different. Otherwise energy would be created or lost in the process of transmission.

It's not that the doppler effect causes time dilation or vice versa. They are just two sides of the same coin, so to speak, because energy has to be conserved.

Do you have some other explanation for how the hydrogen spectrum of light from a distant galaxy can redshift without it losing energy if we observe time passing in that galaxy at the same rate they do there?

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

Do you have some other explanation for how the hydrogen spectrum of light from a distant galaxy can redshift without it losing energy if we observe time passing in that galaxy at the same rate they do there

Nobody denies that "time" (again a misnomer) changes with rates in speed. Hence nobody claims that recurring physical processes are occurring at the same rate when two objects are in motion relative to each other. But that is irrelevant to redshifts.

I've explained it a million times in a million ways to you. The "frequency change" resulting from a doppler shift is merely apparent , not real. It is an illusory perception, as the article I cited tells you. It has nothing to do with "energy" going anywhere.

You just repeatedly re-assert the same erroneous claims and display the same misunderstandings. Nothing explained to you will ever change that, evidently.

You continue to confuse subjective sense perception with objective physical reality. There is NO actual frequency change which occurs due to the perception of a doppler shift. There is only the false perception of one.

The choir singing in the key of C IS, and remains, singing in C. They have never changed their pitch, even though you may (quite thoughtlessly and mistakenly) "believe" they have.

2 Replies

@glitterbag,

Basically, the Theory of Special Relativity, not to be confused with the Theory of General Relativity, is inconclusive, and on a logical, common sensical level—something we can refer to as "reality"—it doesn't fly.

1 Reply

@layman,

Correction:

Quote:

Nobody denies that "time" (again a misnomer) changes with rates in speed. Hence nobody claims that recurring physical processes are [NOT] occurring at the same rate when two objects are in motion relative to each other. But that is irrelevant to redshifts.

0 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

The "frequency change" resulting from a doppler shift is merely apparent , not real. It is an illusory perception, as the article I cited tells you. It has nothing to do with "energy" going anywhere.

Why don't you see that the doppler effect is the wave compression/decompression that occurs in tandem with frequency shift?

You can't speed up or slow down the frame rate of a video without the time-rate changing. They are two sides of the same coin.

Quote:

You continue to confuse subjective sense perception with objective physical reality. There is NO actual frequency change which occurs due to the perception of a doppler shift. There is only the false perception of one.

The same light has two different frequencies: one frequency where it is emitted/sent and the other where it is received/absorbed.

Both are actual frequencies, unrelated to any issues of subjective perception that may occur within the mind of a subjective observer after his or her eyes have received the light.

Quote:

The choir singing in the key of C IS, and remains, singing in C. They have never changed their pitch, even though you may (quite thoughtlessly and mistakenly) "believe" they have.

It's not a question of what I believe but what my tuning forks register. The C# fork hums in sympathetic vibration with the C# sound waves it's absorbing while the C natural fork stays still because there are no C natural waves for it to receive.

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

Basically, the Theory of Special Relativity, not to be confused with the Theory of General Relativity, is inconclusive, and on a logical, common sensical level—something we can refer to as "reality"—it doesn't fly.

Do you have a theory of "reality" to cite here?

2 Replies

@livinglava,

livinglava wrote:

Do you have a theory of "reality" to cite here?

I do. Here's what it is:

Quote:

realism about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme. In philosophical terms, these objects are ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.

As far as physics goes:

Quote:

Realism in physics (especially quantum mechanics) is the claim that the world is in some sense mind-independent...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Here's what it aint:

Quote:

Metaphysical solipsism is a variety of solipsism. Based on a philosophy of subjective idealism, metaphysical solipsists maintain that the self is the only existing reality and that all other realities, including the external world and other persons, are representations of that self, and have no independent existence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism

1 Reply

Einsteins special relativity nonsense

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know