Einsteins special relativity nonsense

@livinglava,

Quote:

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?

No, I don't agree. Mass/energy may well be conserved, but that doesn't tell me anything about a 1 to 1 ratio between the number emitted and the number received. If I am moving away from an object, I will never receive *all* the photons it emits.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

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.

Say it another 10,000 times. It won't make you any more correct. What "reaches the receiver" is not (necessarily) identical to the frequency of the light itself. That's a notion which you are just utterly incapable of grasping.

Solipsists claim that anything that "appears" to be true MUST be true. There is no objective, external world. There is no "truth" in that sense. It's ALL subjective. Everything that exists is merely the product of the mind, so mental truth is the only truth.

In essence you are implying that YOU make the world what it is.

Fraid not.

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

Quote:
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?

No, I don't agree. Mass/energy may well be conserved, but that doesn't tell me anything about a 1 to 1 ratio between the number emitted and the number received. If I am moving away from an object, I will never receive *all* the photons it emits.

[/quote]
Do you agree that:

1)all the energy emitted is conserved in whatever form it is received/absorbed?

OR

2)do you think that energy gets lost somehow in transmission and, if so, how?

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

Say it another 10,000 times. It won't make you any more correct. What "reaches the receiver" is not (necessarily) identical to the frequency of the light itself. That's a notion which you are just utterly incapable of grasping.

Put it in terms of wind. If you are going 10mph into a headwind of 20mph, you experience 30mph air movement against your direction of motion. You can argue that only 20 of that 30mph is due to "the actual wind speed." but that only matters to the extent you're trying to model the wind in a way that is relevant outside the frame in which you are trying to go 10mph against a 20mph headwind.

When you argue that light's frequency refers to the light outside of its reception, it is like arguing that 'air speed' means the same thing as 'wind.' Yes, you can say the wind is only moving 20mph, but the air speed for the person going 10mph is 30mph. It is 30mph BECAUSE the wind speed is 20mph AND his speed into that wind is 10mph.

Now translate that to the light: the emitting electron can have a frequency of 500THz while the receiving electron has a frequency of 400THz, so you want to say that the light's frequency is 500THz and not 400THz but if you want to consider the light separate from the sending and receiving electrons, you would say it has no frequency whatsoever, because light isn't moving within its own frame; it's just a sequence of waves.

So instead of talking about light having an absolute frequency, you should talk about it having an absolute wavelength; except for the wavelength is going to correspond with whatever frequency it has shifted to in the receiving frame; so the only real constant in a given sequence of light waves is the quantity of energy it transmits between source and receiver.

Quote:

Solipsists claim that anything that "appears" to be true MUST be true. There is no objective, external world. There is no "truth" in that sense. It's ALL subjective. Everything that exists is merely the product of the mind, so mental truth is the only truth.

Fraid not.

Stop accusing me of solipsism. It has nothing to do with this issue. This is all about how energy is transmitted between sources and receivers.

The energy and the material systems it connects all exist outside the mind, at least outside of religious considerations of God, so solipsism is irrelevant.

The only reason I keep arguing with you is because you won't acknowledge that light is just energy and that energy sent amounts to energy received, and whatever is happening between sender and receiver in terms of motion and/or gravitation is relevant to the conservation of energy's effect on the frequency of the energy as it is absorbed.

Light doesn't exist in a frozen state outside of sender and receiver. Everything is moving and so the light waves interact with the receiving electron at a certain frequency.

Based on that received frequency and whatever else can be extrapolated about the sending and receiving contexts of motion and gravitation, you can hypothesize that the sending electrons had a different frequency when emitting the light, but you can't observe that moment directly because you have already received the light that was emitted before you could receive it.

0 Replies

@livinglava,

According to the almost universally accepted "laws" of physics, mass/energy is always conserved. Again, so what? What does that have to do with the doppler shift?

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

According to the almost universally accepted "laws" of physics, mass/energy is always conserved. Again, so what? What does that have to do with the doppler shift?

The doppler shift affects the rate at which the energy is received.

So if you shine a flashlight for 10 seconds and the light is received at a blueshifted frequency, the observer will only see the flashlight shine for, say, nine seconds. If its redshifted, they will see the light shine for 11 seconds.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

livinglava wrote:

So if you shine a flashlight for 10 seconds and the light is received at a blueshifted frequency, the observer will only see the flashlight shine for, say, nine seconds. If its redshifted, they will see the light shine for 11 seconds.

Yeah, so?

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

livinglava wrote:
So if you shine a flashlight for 10 seconds and the light is received at a blueshifted frequency, the observer will only see the flashlight shine for, say, nine seconds. If its redshifted, they will see the light shine for 11 seconds.

Yeah, so?

So then you're not really arguing with relativity. The only thing you're arguing is that light has its own frame, within which its frequency/wavelength is fixed; and that wavelength is equal to the frequency of the emitting electron.

If that correctly describes your position, then what do you say about the fact that light only exists in such a frame in an abstract/analytical sense, and that within that frame, there would be no time to measure a frequency?

And if there is no time with which to measure a frequency, then there is also no way to describe the wavelength in terms of length outside the frame, because the light would have a different wavelength depending on where you measured it.

With light all you have is a quantity of waves without frequency or wavelength, except insofar as you look at the light as it interacts with whatever absorbs it.

You can extrapolate the frequency at which the light was emitted, but that is an extrapolation, not an observation. The light is observed at the frequency it is absorbed, i.e. at the reception site.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

You still haven't explained what conservation of energy has to do with the doppler shift, but don't bother. I don't even want to hear it.

It would, no doubt, be just as half-baked and muddled as the rest of that post. I aint gunna waste time trying to decipher what you are trying to say, or to waste time trying to correct it.

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

You still haven't explained what conservation of energy has to do with the doppler shift, but don't bother. I don't even want to hear it.

It would, no doubt, be just as half-baked and muddled as the rest of that post. I aint gunna waste time trying to decipher what you are trying to say, or to waste time trying to correct it.

If you shine a flashlight for 10 seconds, 10 units of energy are sent out.

If the 10 units of energy are received in 11 seconds, the rate of energy transmission is lower.

That is why the energy is received at a lower frequency than it is emitted, i.e. because the time rate is different for the receiver than for the sender.

Whose time is correct? The one who receives the energy in 11 seconds or the one who sent it out in 10 seconds?

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Now you're talking about time again. Heh.

Are you still trying to claim that energy is somehow "lost?"

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

Now you're talking about time again. Heh.

Are you still trying to claim that energy is somehow "lost?"

I never said energy was lost. Energy is always conserved.

If the same amount of energy is sent out over the course of 10 seconds, but it is received over the course of 11 seconds at a lower frequency, which duration of seconds is the correct one, the 10 or the 11?

1 Reply

@livinglava,

livinglava wrote:

If the same amount of energy is sent out over the course of 10 seconds, but it is received over the course of 11 seconds at a lower frequency, which duration of seconds is the correct one, the 10 or the 11?

By YOUR hypothesis the clock registering 10 seconds is correct. That's why it takes 11 (of THOSE seconds) to reach me. Because, again, it is hypothesized that I am moving away from you. Your example presupposes that the clock at the source is the correct one to use when measuring relative seconds elapsed.

I send you a signal that lasts for 10 seconds (by my watch). Because you are moving away from me, it takes 11 (of my) seconds before it all reaches you. That's what you are saying.

But I can't see why conservation of energy ever enters into the discussion. It's a non sequitur.

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

livinglava wrote:

If the same amount of energy is sent out over the course of 10 seconds, but it is received over the course of 11 seconds at a lower frequency, which duration of seconds is the correct one, the 10 or the 11?

By YOUR hypothesis the clock registering 10 seconds is correct. That's why it takes 11 (of THOSE seconds) to reach me. Because, again, it is hypothesized that I am moving away from you. Your example presupposes that the clock at the source is the correct one to use when measuring relative seconds elapsed.

I send you a signal that lasts for 10 seconds (by my watch). Because you are moving away from me, it takes 11 (of my) seconds before it all reaches you. That's what you are saying.

But I can't see why conservation of energy ever enters into the discussion. It's a non sequitur.

The sender clocks the flashlight being on for 10 minutes. The receiver, who registers a slightly lower frequency, clocks it as taking 11 minutes. Each is using their own clock.

So you are now saying that the 10 minutes is correct and the receiving clock's 11 minutes are false, and thus his clock is running slow because the 11 minutes it took him to time the flashlight being on should have only lasted 10 minutes?

2 Replies

@livinglava,

Ive been away from this forum, missed a lot.

But back to my original claim which still has not been addressed.

That is my claim that Einsteins hypothesis on SR is not rational.

For example, the claim on which the lorentz transformation is based, the motion of a photon in a light clock as seen by two observers, is just an impossible scenario, and should not be admissible in a scientific paper.
I (among many others) have done a video showing the only possible trajectory of a photon as seen by every observer .... see:
https://vimeo.com/295270284
and
https://vimeo.com/421477490

The light clock thought experiment is inadmissible because it contradicts the earlier claims of Einstein, regarding simultaneity, so its a direct contradiction.
And as a light clock is a physical impossibility, and additionally its impossible for two observers to watch it from different frames when the relative speed differential is almost light speed, then using this thought experiment is as valid as calling on Santa Claus to verify the experiment.

1 Reply

@justafool44,

I just wasted 5 minutes looking at your video.

What you are arguing is not Einstein... it is Galileo. The experiment you are doing is exactly the same as his dropping ball on a moving ship thought experiment.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

However there is no way the photon is going to take up the horizontal motion of the ship, this making a zig zag as you claim. THAT would mean that the photon possesses exactly the same physical characteristics as a ball, and THAT would mean its Galilean. the zig zag path is Galilean not Relativistic.
However the fact remains that an apparent path of a ball tossed up and down in a moving train, does not mean that the ball is really doing a parabola It just going straight up and down, WHILE the train complete with ball is moving horizontally.

So no-one is ever going to work out the physics of just the apparent parabolic path of the ball, WITHOUT considering the horizontal motion of the train.
To do so would give incorrect results.
The problem with relativity, is the insistence that IMAGINARY arbitrarily chosen Frames of Reference ACTUALLY make a difference to the Physics.
They don't, on account of the fact that they are IMAGINARY.

So you should look at my videos again, as you failed to understand.

1 Reply

@justafool44,

Quote:

However the fact remains that an apparent path of a ball tossed up and down in a moving train, does not mean that the ball is really doing a parabola It just going straight up and down, WHILE the train complete with ball is moving horizontally.

At least you see the principle... To someone on the ground the ball would appear to be moving in a parabolic zig zag. To me on that train it would just be moving up and down in a straight line.

Your writing isn't clear. I don't know whether you think that

a) my point of view is the correct one.
b) the person on the ground's point of view is the correct one.
c) some other point of view is the correct one (since the Earth is moving compared to the Sun).

Galileo says they are all correct. Your videos imply that only one is correct (although it is is not clear which one you would choose). Galileo figured this out 300 years before Einstein came around.

This is something you should have learned in high school Physics.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

No, its NOT correct that both are valid.
changing one's viewpoint is 0ne thing, (which can NEVER make a scrap of difference to Physical processes) but Relativists make a error when they decide to just IGNORE a big part of whats really going on.
By choosing a parabolic path for the ball, (the wrong choice) you must ignore the very important circumstances surrounding the event, that the ball is already in a moving train. you cant just forget that the train exists, and somehow decide to only consider the motion of the ball in isolation, or only with respect to your "stationary" observation point.

This is why your idea of the validity of imaginary frames is wrong:
A practical example.

A man on a airplane has a rubber-band powered toy plane that can go 50 feet along the length of the planes cabin. A outside observer who is a bit dense, lets call him Albert, watches that toy plane travel about 3500 feet, (because he ignores the critical information about the existence of the airplane) with a velocity of 600 mph from his frame of reference on one winding of the rubber band. Albert immediately contacts the Israeli Military Intelligence to inform them that the Chinese toys possess incredible technology and fantastic rubber bands, either that, or Time and Space have shrunk!

So, no you are wrong The ball NEVER really does a parabolic trajectory, its only a projection of the combination of the trains horizontal motion whilst carrying a up and down motion ball, projected or plotted on to an imaginary stationary background, that has no physical bearing on the motion of the ball. You are doing Physics by choosing to ignore most of the critical information!

Watch my videos again, both of them, its quite clear who is correct.

0 Replies

@livinglava,

can I play too?
Both clocks are recording exactly the same time periods. (the clocks are in sync)
The 10 second pulse of light sent, has to catch up to the receiver, so it takes 11 seconds to be fully received.
The receiver sees that light red shifted.
Nothing is lost, time doesn't change, lengths don't shrink, it just takes a bit longer for that burst of light to be fully received, because the receiver is running away from the light.
There is no reason to assume an impossible model that says that light always goes at c regardless of anything. This is irrational.
Red and blue shift proves that we are moving relative to the light.
"Layman" half rejects Special Relativity, but wants to hang on to the Lorentz contraction equation, so he has to do a lot of mental gymnastics to justify this position.
Time is a object, its absolute, so is dimensionless space absolute.
Light speed must be c + or - v.
Imaginary Frames of reference are imaginary, and have no bearing or effect on Physics in any way. To base Physics on Imaginary constructs is creates an illusion. (Physics becomes a game of what observers believe they are seeing from different vantage points. if you stand 500 meters from me, then Einstein's logic says that you really have shrunk, because I can claim that my frame is stationary, its not just perspective, its a real shrinkage!)

Physical processes are localized, they pertain to the immediate environment, and include ALL of the factors that contribute to the causes and effects we know as Laws of Kinematics and Mechanics.
This means that its purely a fun exercise to "plot" an imaginary point on a rolling train wheel, and superimpose that point on your imaginary background frame, this obtaining a cycloid. This is construction geometry, and has nothing to do with Physics.
The only true motion can only be understood in Physics if you ensure that ALL of the essential, pertinent information is available for the analysis.
ONLY thinking about the imaginary point, and the background, is ignoring most of the essential information, so your conclusion will be of no value at all, other than for amusement. But its not Physics.
Einsteins theories are all incorrect, because he refuses to include ALL of the necessary information that is required for a correct understanding.
Its like playing cards with half a deck.

0 Replies

Einsteins special relativity nonsense

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know