Einsteins special relativity nonsense

@layman,

layman wrote:

layman wrote:
Your mistaken premise is, as I've pointed out, that if I "see" red, then, By God, the frequency of the light I am seeing IS red.

And if a color blind person sees the same object as grey, then, by God, it IS grey.

Who's "right" as a matter of objective reality?

Well, they're BOTH right, of course.

In the last post you said that subjectivity doesn't change an object; and then you say that color is subjective.

You don't understand how spectrometers work and how atomic spectra are quantized with specific bands at specific frequencies.

The perception of color is subjective, yes; but the frequency of light is an objective measure of how many wave peaks are emitted or absorbed per second, which can be measured by splitting the light through a prism and seeing which spectral bands are present and absent.

When a specific spectral band in the light from a distant galaxy is closer to red than the same light from our sun, it means one or the other (or both) is/are shifted, but the difference is not perceptual. Light frequency is objective.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

The perception of color is subjective, yes; but the frequency of light is an objective measure of how many wave peaks are emitted or absorbed per second, which can be measured by splitting the light through a prism and seeing which spectral bands are present and absent.

Exactly. Now you need to figure out if the color you're seeing is the product of light being selectively reflected from a given object (an objective phenomenon), or the result of an optical illusion created by your own idiosyncratic motion (a subjective thing). In neither case does what you "see" have any effect on the frequency of the light you are looking at. But you think it does.

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

Quote:
The perception of color is subjective, yes; but the frequency of light is an objective measure of how many wave peaks are emitted or absorbed per second, which can be measured by splitting the light through a prism and seeing which spectral bands are present and absent.

Exactly. Now you need to figure out if the color you're seeing is the product of light being selectively reflected from a given object (an objective phenomenon), or the result of an optical illusion created by your own idiosyncratic motion (a subjective thing). In neither case does what you "see" have any effect on the frequency of the light you are looking at. But you think it does.

You say, "exactly," that the frequency of light is objective, but then you say that frequency shift of the hydrogen spectrum is subjective, which it is not. You can google "hydrogen spectrum redshift" and see spectrographic measurements of spectral lines that have shifted from where they are measured in sunlight from our own nearby star.

That means spectrum frequency shift is not a subjective perception. The absorption/emission bands of the hydrogen spectrum have objectively changed on the spectrograph. The human brain is not involved in the relationship between the spectrograph and the light. The light is distilled into its spectrum and the emission/absorption bands are objectively where they are.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

livinglava wrote:

That means spectrum frequency shift is not a subjective perception.

A frequency shift, when it occurs, is not subjective. When you "perceive" a frequency shift, when it has NOT occurred, that is a subjective illusion.

This is what you just can't seem to grasp.

The doppler shift is NOT the result of any change in the frequency of the wave. The illusion of a different frequency is NOT caused by anything in the wave itself. It is caused by motion, which changes your perception of the wave, but not the wave itself.

I do in fact see/hear a wave more frequently if I am moving toward it. In that sense it "is" more frequent "for me." But the length of the wave itself has not changed at all.

The choir is still singing in C, no matter how I hear it.

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

I do in fact see a wave more frequently if I am moving toward it. In that sense it "is" more frequent "for me." But the length of the wave itself has not changed at all.

There is no difference between frequency and wavelength in light. Certain electrons resonate with certain frequencies of light and that's how frequency is measured.

When you look at the hydrogen absorption spectrum and there is a black line, that is the part of the spectrum that hydrogen absorbs and doesn't reflect. The absorption band is the same as the emission band that the hydrogen emits when its electron is stimulated to oscillate in that specific frequency.

So when you filter the light from a distant galaxy through a prism to measure the spectrum, the emission/absorption bands measured are properties of the light you are measuring. For you to call it a 'perceived shift' because it is not the same frequency that was emitted is a misuse of the term, 'perception,' i.e. because the spectrometer doesn't 'perceive' the light; it only separates it into a spectrum.

When humans look at the spectrograph and see the absorption/emission bands, they 'perceive' what they are looking at, but that doesn't affect where the bands are on the spectrograph.

The bands have shifted objectively before the spectrometer separates the light into different frequencies. So the shift is objective prior to any human interaction with the spectrograph.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

the emission/absorption bands measured are properties of the light you are measuring.

No they are not. They are properties of how often you, or your instruments, receive the light signals, that's all. Any elementary treatise on the doppler shift will tell you that. So would simple reflection on it, for that matter.

You have repeatedly demonstrated that you are utterly incapable of making a very simple distinction between objective and subjective phenomena.

Like I said, you are the perfect candidate for conversion to the religion of SR.

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

Quote:
the emission/absorption bands measured are properties of the light you are measuring.

No they are not. You have repeatedly demonstrated that you are utterly incapable of making a very simple distinction between objective and subjective phenomena.

Like I said, you are the perfect candidate for conversion to the religion of SR.

"Subjective" isn't a label you can put on anything. It refers to things happening in your mind.

The frequency shift of the redshifted light is not happening in anyone's mind. It is happening to the light itself OUTSIDE the human mind and body.

It is therefore incorrect to call it "subjective." You can argue that it is 'deviant' in comparison with the frequency it was emitted at, if you want; but the frequency deviation is not caused by anything subjective, i.e. something psychological or perceptual.

Don't just use to terms 'objective' and 'subjective' to refer to something other than effects caused by the human mind and/or sensory apparatus. When you experience moonlight as sufficient to see, it is because your pupil aperture opened wider and let more light in to reach your retina; so there is subjective brightness effects caused by the objective opening and closing of the pupil aperture in the eye, but frequency shifts in light are not caused by anything except motion and/or gravitation between sender and receiver, which are not subjective.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

The frequency shift of the redshifted light is not happening in anyone's mind. It is happening to the light itself OUTSIDE the human mind and body.

You are utterly and completely wrong, no matter how many thousands of times you repeat your mistaken understanding. There is no "frequency shift" in the light itself. Because of relative motion, you "perceive" a shift in frequency which is not really there.

That's the very reason why scientists interpret a doppler shift as an indication that objects are moving relative to each other. Because they assume that the perceptions they have are distorted by the posited motion. They conclude that what they are detecting is relative motion, NOT an actual frequency shift.

2 Replies

@layman,

Here's what they do NOT conclude.

The light left it's source at a frequency (say red), traveled to us at that wavelength, and we are seeing the wave length as it "truly is."

If that were the case, they would also conclude that there is NO relative motion between source and receiver. The two would be "at rest" relative to each other, if that were the case.

1 Reply

@layman,

If I am walking toward a house in the distance, it will "appear" to get bigger and bigger, the closer I get. When I arrive at it, and place my nose up against one of it's wall, it will now appear to be "huge" compared to the size I "saw' from a mile away.

From this I can conclude one of two (or more) possible things:

1. The house "really did" get bigger and bigger, as I approached it, or

2. That only my perceptions changed and the change in perception was due to relative motion between me and the house.

Take your pick.

Then, whatever pick you make, apply it to the case where you perceive a doppler shift.

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

If I am walking toward a house in the distance, it will "appear" to get bigger and bigger, the closer I get

I would not even have to be present. Just assume that "I" am instead a moving camera, which has no mind and is completely mechanical.

It would record the same images that I would see if I was carrying it. The fact that the images were recorded by a "machine" would not make them any more or less "real."

0 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

You are utterly and completely wrong, no matter how many thousands of times you repeat your mistaken understanding. There is no "frequency shift" in the light itself. Because of relative motion, you "perceive" a shift in frequency which is not really there.

That's the very reason why scientists interpret a doppler shift as an indication that objects are moving relative to each other. Because they assume that the perceptions they have are distorted by the posited motion. They conclude that what they are detecting is relative motion, NOT an actual frequency shift.

To be completely accurate, the waves are being absorbed by a retina or spectroscope at an increased rate, i.e. at a more FREQUENT rate; therefore the FREQUENCY has increased.

Now, you can interpret one frequency as being the one that the light would exhibit if you were in the same rest frame with its source of emission, but there is no absolute frame in which you can say that the light exists separately from the one whose motion or gravitation results in it being shifted.

You are misusing the word, 'frequency,' to refer to more than just the rate at which the waves are received or emitted. That is all it means. In fact, it doesn't really refer to the emission frequency at all, because that frequency is the electron's frequency of oscillation/vibration. The light's frequency can only be measured by being received/absorbed, so it's not accurate to describe light as having an observable frequency at its source.

The emitting electron's frequency can be interpolated from the frequency of the light and controlling for relativistic effects/shifts, but the light's frequency is the one at which it is received, i.e. because you observe light by receiving it.

2 Replies

@livinglava,

Quote:

To be completely accurate, the waves are being absorbed by a retina or spectroscope at an increased rate, i.e. at a more FREQUENT rate; therefore the FREQUENCY has increased.

No, to be completely accurate you would say that "therefore the PERCEIVED frequency has increased," which is quite true.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

You are misusing the word, 'frequency,' to refer to more than just the rate at which the waves are received or emitted. That is all it means. In fact, it doesn't really refer to the emission frequency at all, because that frequency is the electron's frequency of oscillation/vibration. The light's frequency can only be measured by being received/absorbed, so it's not accurate to describe light as having an observable frequency at its source.

A nice summary of the now completely refuted and long discredited philosophy of science commonly known as "positivism." As Einstein himself noted, this philosophy essentially boils down to Berkeley's ridiculous claim that "to be is to be perceived," i.e., solipsism.

0 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

Quote:
To be completely accurate, the waves are being absorbed by a retina or spectroscope at an increased rate, i.e. at a more FREQUENT rate; therefore the FREQUENCY has increased.

No, to be completely accurate you would say that "therefore the PERCEIVED frequency has increased," which is quite true.

If the spectrometer measures the light, then they only thing you're 'perceiving' is the spectrograph.

You just want to claim that light has a frequency that remains the same once it is emitted and any observer-frame effects caused by gravity or motion are alterations of the light.

That's fine, but it has nothing to do with perception or subjectivity, which are separate from the frequency changes that occur PRIOR to any perception occurring.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

You just want to claim that light has a frequency that remains the same once it is emitted and any observer-frame effects caused by gravity or motion are alterations of the light.

Wrong, yet again, as usual. That's not what I claim at all. Quite the opposite.

As I've said about 1,000 times now, what you are calling "observer-frame effects" do not, and can not, cause "alterations of the light."

Radar guns are used to detect presumed motion, not light frequencies.

They are also designed based on the assumption the frequency of light has both an objective wave-length and a subjective (as perceived) wave-length. Both can presumably be "known" and they are two separate and distinct types of "frequencies." One is the "real" frequency, one aint.

2 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

Radar guns are used to detect presumed motion, not light frequencies.

Of course they can also calculate relative speed between two objects. Point one at an object that is not moving relative to the gun, and it will read "0." In other cases the reading might be "100 mph," or whatever.

The can also detect the direction of the motion. If two objects are approaching each other there will be a "blueshift". If they are receding from each other, there will be a "redshift."

But, either way, the point is that there will be a difference based on motion, and it's speed/direction. And it is all premised on the assumption that perceived frequencies of moving objects will be different from the "actual" frequency (i.e, the frequency which would be perceived if there were no relative motion involved).

0 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

Quote:
You just want to claim that light has a frequency that remains the same once it is emitted and any observer-frame effects caused by gravity or motion are alterations of the light.

Wrong, yet again, as usual. That's not what I claim at all. Quite the opposite.

As I've said about 1,000 times now, what you are calling "observer-frame effects" do not, and can not, cause "alterations of the light."

Radar guns are used to detect presumed motion, not light frequencies.

They are also designed based on the assumption the frequency of light has both an objective wave-length and a subjective (as perceived) wave-length. Both can presumably be "known" and they are two separate and distinct types of "frequencies." One is the "real" frequency, one aint.

They are both frequencies because frequency just refers to waves-per-second; it says nothing about what's causing the frequency to be what it is.

This is all semantics of you defending the idea that a light wave exists in its own unchanging frame and that other frames that interact with the light's frame are 'perceiving' it differently without actually changing it in any way within its own frame.

You can frame it that way if you like, but it has nothing to do with perception or subjectivity, unless you consider the framing subjective, which it technically is because it's an analytical framework brought to bear on empirical data.

In that case, framing the light as having its own frame in which it remains unchanged regardless of how it is measured in other frames is also subjective.

The bottom line is that the same number of waves are emitted as are received, because energy/mass is conserved. Can we just at least agree on that?

2 Replies

@livinglava,

Quote:

They are both frequencies because frequency just refers to waves-per-second; it says nothing about what's causing the frequency to be what it is.

Sure, it's true that what's causing the apparent difference in frequency (motion) is not apparent just from looking at the frequency measured by the receiver. So what?

Quote:

you [are] defending the idea that a light wave exists in its own unchanging frame and that other frames that interact with the light's frame are 'perceiving' it differently without actually changing it in any way within its own frame.

Of course I'm "defending" that idea. Who, other than a solipsist, would deny it to begin with?

Why is it that a radar gun, based on the known "doppler effect," can measure relative speed?

It can't, without some assumptions.

Assumption: Electromagnetic waves always travel at one, uniform, rate of speed, i.e. "c." (in a vacuum). It's speed does not vary with time, distance traveled, or anything else. It is "constant." Or, as you put it, " a light wave exists in its own unchanging frame."

Therefore, if you DON"T measure it at that speed in some other frame, then you are wrong. You are mismeasuring the speed. You are the victim of an "optical illusion," because you are not measuring it's "true" speed.

You will mis-measure the "true" speed of light if you miscalculate the distance traveled. If you are moving toward, or away from, a source of light, then you will miscalculate the distance the light must travel if you assume there is no relative motion between you and the emitter, and you therefore don't account for the fact that the distance is changing all the time. You must correct for that to get the "true" distance the light must travel to reach you. You can only measure the true speed of light when you are using the correct distance traveled by it.

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

Sure, it's true that what's causing the apparent difference in frequency (motion) is not apparent just from looking at the frequency measured by the receiver. So what?

So the frequency is just how frequently the waves reach the receiver. Whether they are shifted or not, the frequency received is THE FREQUENCY of the light.

The frequency of emission is the ELECTRON FREQUENCY, i.e. the frequency at which the electrons changed levels to emit the light.

The light may exist between sender and receiver, but we can't observe it as such. Observing the light requires absorbing/receiving it. So when you make claims about the light as it exists between sender and receiver, that is an inference, an analysis; not an observation.

Quote:

Quote:
you [are] defending the idea that a light wave exists in its own unchanging frame and that other frames that interact with the light's frame are 'perceiving' it differently without actually changing it in any way within its own frame.

Of course I'm "defending" that idea. Who, other than a solipsist, would deny it to begin with?

Framing isn't something objective that exists 'out there.' The light exists and the sender and receiver may be moving toward or away from each other, and/or they may experience gravitational differences; but there are no frames anywhere except in the analytical process of the analyst.

So light waves are being emitted and intercepted and scattered, etc. in all sorts of ways by all sorts of electrons in different situations of motion and gravity. Energy is thus transmitted between senders and receivers, and the energy may change frequency for various reasons, but insisting that the frequency at which it is emitted is more real than the one at which it is absorbed is just not relevant.

What's relevant is that the energy is transmitted and that it gets received/absorbed at different frequencies than it was emitted.

1 Reply

Einsteins special relativity nonsense

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know