In explaining the relativistic Doppler effect for light, at 6:09 in this video

https://youtu.be/MBuLTzj3CWA?t=369

Brian Greene derives the formula

𝛎_obs = 1/Δt' = γ(c-v)/λ

where 𝛎_obs is the frequency measured by the moving observer, γ is the Lorentz factor, c is the speed of the light relative to the stationary source, v is the speed at which the observer moves away from the source, and λ is the wavelength.

Accordingly, the speed of the light waves relative to the moving observer is

c' = λ(𝛎_obs) = γ(c-v),

in violation of Einstein's relativity.

See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 11:53:59 AM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Brian Greene derives the formula
> 𝛎_obs = 1/Δt' = γ(c-v)/λ
> where 𝛎_obs is the frequency measured by the moving observer, γ is the Lorentz factor, c is the speed of the light relative to the stationary source, v is the speed at which the observer moves away from the source, and λ is the wavelength. Accordingly, the speed of the light waves relative to the moving observer is
> c' = λ(𝛎_obs) = γ(c-v),
> in violation of Einstein's relativity.

Correction: c' = (λ_obs)(𝛎_obs) = λ𝛎 = c, remembering that
λ_obs = λ sqrt[(1+v)/(1-v)] and 𝛎_obs = 𝛎 sqrt[(1-v)/(1+v)]

On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 9:49:04 PM UTC+1, JG Folger wrote:

> Correction: c' = (λ_obs)(𝛎_obs) = λ𝛎 = c

It takes insanity to believe that the motion of the observer running away from the light source changes the wavelength from λ to λ_obs. Brian Greene is not insane and keeps the wavelength constant, λ, in the moving-observer scenario.

Pentcho Valev

On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 1:38:57 PM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > Correction: c' = (λ_obs)(𝛎_obs) = λ𝛎 = c
> It takes insanity to believe that the motion of the observer running away
> from the light source changes the wavelength from λ to λ_obs.

When the observer changes from being at rest in S to being at rest in S', it does not affect the wavelength of the light. The wavelength in terms of S remains unchanged, and the wavelength in terms of S' remains unchanged. But the observer has changed from being at rest in S to being at rest in S', so the wavelength in terms of the observer's rest frame is no longer the wavelength in terms of S, it is the wavelength in terms of S'. Those are two different things. The light is not affected. What has changed is the system of standard inertial coordinates in which the observer is at rest.

On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 11:09:11 PM UTC+1, JG Folger wrote:

"When the observer changes from being at rest in S to being at rest in S', it does not affect the wavelength of the light. The wavelength in terms of S remains unchanged, and the wavelength in terms of S' remains unchanged. But the observer has changed from being at rest in S to being at rest in S', so the wavelength in terms of the observer's rest frame is no longer the wavelength in terms of S, it is the wavelength in terms of S'. Those are two different things. The light is not affected. What has changed is the system of standard inertial coordinates in which the observer is at rest."

Insane, but Tom Roberts' explanation is even more insane:

Tom Roberts: "Wavelength is not an intrinsic property of light, so it cannot be discussed independent of how it is measured. But it is clear that in vacuum the light ray itself is unchanged as it propagates. Differently moving observers will measure different wavelengths for a given light ray, because their MEASURING INSTRUMENTS are oriented differently in spacetime, and such a measurement inherently PROJECTS the light ray onto the measuring instrument." https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/Y7KQjUSdum0/1rvrcjF4JlMJ

Pentcho Valev

On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 3:59:37 PM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> "When the observer changes from being at rest in S to being at rest in S', it does not affect the wavelength of the light. The wavelength in terms of S remains unchanged, and the wavelength in terms of S' remains unchanged. But the observer has changed from being at rest in S to being at rest in S', so the wavelength in terms of the observer's rest frame is no longer the wavelength in terms of S, it is the wavelength in terms of S'. Those are two different things. The light is not affected. What has changed is the system of standard inertial coordinates in which the observer is at rest."
>
> Insane...

Which part of the explanation do you think is insane? The light wave can be described in terms of x,y,z,t or in terms of x',y',z',t', both being standard inertial coordinate systems, and those descriptions will of course be different, even though they are both describing the same light wave. What is insane about this?

Le 05/02/2022 à 23:09, JG Folger a écrit :
> On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 1:38:57 PM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>> > Correction: c' = (λ_obs)(𝛎_obs) = λ𝛎 = c
>> It takes insanity to believe that the motion of the observer running away
>> from the light source changes the wavelength from λ to λ_obs.
>
> When the observer changes from being at rest in S to being at rest in S', it
> does not affect the wavelength of the light. The wavelength in terms of S remains
> unchanged, and the wavelength in terms of S' remains unchanged. But the observer
> has changed from being at rest in S to being at rest in S', so the wavelength in
> terms of the observer's rest frame is no longer the wavelength in terms of S, it
> is the wavelength in terms of S'. Those are two different things. The light is
> not affected. What has changed is the system of standard inertial coordinates in
> which the observer is at rest.

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?9tK6-TYulhl_hF9Y11uiGGRPSQI@jntp/Data.Media:1>

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?9tK6-TYulhl_hF9Y11uiGGRPSQI@jntp/Data.Media:2>

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=9tK6-TYulhl_hF9Y11uiGGRPSQI@jntp>

R.H.

--
"Mais ne nous y trompons pas. Il n'y a pas que de la violence
avec des armes. Il y a des situations de violence".
Abbé Pierre.

On Sunday, February 6, 2022 at 1:15:49 AM UTC+1, JG Folger wrote:

"The light wave can be described in terms of x,y,z,t or in terms of x',y',z',t', both being standard inertial coordinate systems, and those descriptions will of course be different, even though they are both describing the same light wave. What is insane about this?"

Consider equidistant light pulses (not a light wave): https://youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE

Why should the distance between subsequent pulses become shorter for the moving observer? And not just shorter, but as shorter as is necessary for the speed of light relative to the moving observer to gloriously remain constant? Insane, isn't it?

Pentcho Valev

On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 7:41:31 PM UTC-5, Richard Hachel wrote:

> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?9tK6-TYulhl_hF9Y11ulGGRPSQI@jntp/Data.Media:1>
>
> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?9tK6-TYulhl_hF9Y11ulGGRPSQI@jntp/Data.Media:2>
>
> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=9tK6-TYulhl_hF9Y11ulGGRPSQI@jntp>

Links don't work

The Albert Einstein Institute also disproves Einstein's relativity (unwittingly, of course):

Albert Einstein Institute: "Here is an animation of the receiver moving towards the source:

https://www.einstein-online.info/wp-content/uploads/SRT_Dopplereffekt_Pulse_4_%C2%A9_Daniela_Leitner_Markus_Poessel_Einstein-Online.gif

By observing the two indicator lights, you can see for yourself that, once more, there is a blue-shift - the pulse frequency measured at the receiver is somewhat higher than the frequency with which the pulses are sent out. This time, THE DISTANCES BETWEEN SUBSEQUENT PULSES ARE NOT AFFECTED, BUT STILL THERE IS A FREQUENCY SHIFT: As the receiver moves towards each pulse, the time until pulse and receiver meet up is shortened. In this particular animation, which has the receiver moving towards the source at one third the speed of the pulses themselves, four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses." http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler.html

The proposition in capitals, combined with the formula

(frequency at receiver) = (speed of light relative to receiver)/(distance between subsequent pulses)

proves variable speed of light and disproves Einstein's relativity.

More here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

Le 06/02/2022 à 02:04, rotchm a écrit :

> Links don't work

Espèce d'abruti.

J'en arrive à me demander comment on peut pondre des cons pareils.

Bon, on a bien pondu des Dutroux et des Lelandais.

Faut relativiser.

Théorie de la relativité.

Mais y a quand même de sacrés cons sur la terre.

R.H.

On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 6:04:53 PM UTC-7, rotchm wrote:
> On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 7:41:31 PM UTC-5, Richard Hachel wrote:
>
> > <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?9tK6-TYulhl_hF9Y11ulGGRPSQI@jntp/Data.Media:1>
> >
> > <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?9tK6-TYulhl_hF9Y11ulGGRPSQI@jntp/Data.Media:2>
> >
> > <http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=9tK6-TYulhl_hF9Y11ulGGRPSQI@jntp>
>
> Links don't work

They did for me the first time, but now they don't. But the real question I have is, why does
Richard deal with movement at arbitrary angles when the principle is more clearly shown
by movement radially only or transverse only?

On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 6:38:46 PM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> The Albert Einstein Institute also disproves Einstein's relativity (unwittingly, of course):
>
> Albert Einstein Institute: "Here is an animation of the receiver moving towards the source:
>
> https://www.einstein-online.info/wp-content/uploads/SRT_Dopplereffekt_Pulse_4_%C2%A9_Daniela_Leitner_Markus_Poessel_Einstein-Online.gif
>
> By observing the two indicator lights, you can see for yourself that, once more, there is a blue-shift - the
> pulse frequency measured at the receiver is somewhat higher than the frequency with which the pulses are
> sent out. This time, THE DISTANCES BETWEEN SUBSEQUENT PULSES ARE NOT AFFECTED, BUT STILL
> THERE IS A FREQUENCY SHIFT: As the receiver moves towards each pulse, the time until pulse and receiver
> meet up is shortened. In this particular animation, which has the receiver moving towards the source at one
> third the speed of the pulses themselves, four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three
> pulses." http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler.html

This has been explained to you MANY, MANY times but you still fail (refuse?) to understand. Do you even
NOTICE that the perspective is NOT from that of the receiver? The receiver is MOVING in the animation!
The stationary observer in the animation sees the receiver's position as xR = vt and a pulse moving at
xP1 = xS - ct and a second pulse moving at xP2 = xS - ct + L, where L is the distance between pulses in the
stationary frame (delta xP = xP2 - xP1 = L).

The first pulse meets the receiver at x1 =vt1 = xS - ct1, or x1 = v*xS/(c + v). The second pulse meets the
receiver at x2 = v(xS + L)/(c + v). All from the perspective of the stationary observer.

x2 - x1 = [v/(c + v)]L

which is NOT merely L, so even the observer in the stationary frame says that the receiver doesn't see the
pulses a distance L apart.

So please, please, PLEASE stop rechewing your putrid cabbage over and over and over again!

Le 06/02/2022 à 15:31, Gary Harnagel a écrit :
> They did for me the first time, but now they don't. But the real question I
> have is, why does
> Richard deal with movement at arbitrary angles when the principle is more
> clearly shown
> by movement radially only or transverse only?

I deal with this because it is not enough to say what happens for a purely
transverse movement.

It's very nice to say that if a train passes at 0.8c, and if I'm placed
far and transversely, my train measures 18 meters instead of 30.
It's very pretty, very poetic to say that if the speed drops to 0.6c, I
would see a 24-meter train.

Yes, all this is very pretty and very poetic, to think that
L'=L.sqrt(1-v^²/c²).

But for a true scientist, this is insufficient.

A true scientist must know something other than a simple cross-sectional
view of the phenomenon.

Same for times, same for wavelengths.

The three equations are on the diagram I made.

I have the same grievance against relativists when they show off that they
know the formula for adding relativistic velocities, and say:
w=v+u/(1+vu/c²)

It's very true, it's very beautiful, it's very poetic.

But hey, at the limit if I say that a dog is a dog and that when a swallow
flies, it flies, I didn't say more.

It's fine to give the LONGITUDIANAL addition formula.

But all the same, the general relationship is still more efficient.

I put it for those who do not know it.

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?wSWF4bBx4pYknS5tSEkyNpAB0Uk@jntp/Data.Media:1>

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=wSWF4bBx4pYknS5tSEkyNpAB0Uk@jntp>

R.H.

--
"Mais ne nous y trompons pas. Il n'y a pas que de la violence
avec des armes. Il y a des situations de violence".
Abbé Pierre.

On Sunday, February 6, 2022 at 8:08:54 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
>
> Le 06/02/2022 à 15:31, Gary Harnagel a écrit :
> >
> > They did for me the first time, but now they don't. But the real question I
> > have is, why does Richard deal with movement at arbitrary angles when
> ? the principle is more clearly shown by movement radially only or transverse
> > only?
>
> I deal with this because it is not enough to say what happens for a purely
> transverse movement.

But in the transverse as well as any angle > 0, the angle changes.

> It's very nice to say that if a train passes at 0.8c, and if I'm placed
> far and transversely, my train measures 18 meters instead of 30.

Does it? Length contraction is due to the relativity of simultaneity
when the lightpath lengths are different.

> It's very pretty, very poetic to say that if the speed drops to 0.6c, I
> would see a 24-meter train.
>
> Yes, all this is very pretty and very poetic, to think that
> L'=L.sqrt(1-v^²/c²).
>
> But for a true scientist, this is insufficient.
>
> A true scientist must know something other than a simple cross-sectional
> view of the phenomenon.

"Knowing" doesn't mean one should blather it all over.

> Same for times, same for wavelengths.
>
> The three equations are on the diagram I made.
>
> I have the same grievance against relativists when they show off that they
> know the formula for adding relativistic velocities, and say:
> w=v+u/(1+vu/c²)
>
> It's very true, it's very beautiful, it's very poetic.
>
> But hey, at the limit if I say that a dog is a dog and that when a swallow
> flies, it flies, I didn't say more.
>
> It's fine to give the LONGITUDIANAL addition formula.
>
> But all the same, the general relationship is still more efficient.
>
> I put it for those who do not know it.
>
> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?wSWF4bBx4pYknS5tSEkyNpAB0Uk@jntp/Data.Media:1>

It would be if you did it right. You didn't:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity-addition_formula#:~:text=The%20special%20theory%20of%20relativity%2C%20formulated%20in%201905,the%20velocities%20of%20objects%20in%20different%20reference%20frames.

Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Sunday, February 6, 2022 at 8:08:54 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
....
>> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?wSWF4bBx4pYknS5tSEkyNpAB0Uk@jntp/Data.Media:1>
>
> It would be if you did it right. You didn't:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity-addition_formula#:~:text=The%20special%20theory%20of%20relativity%2C%20formulated%20in%201905,the%20velocities%20of%20objects%20in%20different%20reference%20frames.

Both formulas are equivalent.

"The velocity that this observer actually sees that wave travelling is equal to the velocity of the wave plus the velocity of the observer...The wavelength hasn't changed." https://youtu.be/UHpPsnJNKrk?t=91

Einsteinians, this is true for sound waves and wrong for light? The motion of the observer does not change the wavelength of sound but gloriously changes the wavelength of light? Only intense and universal crimestop can save Einstein's relativity:

George Orwell: "Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."

See more: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev