Special Relativity creates Logical Paradoxes & Physical Impossibilities

Claude Badley

Registered Guest
Fascist
*So here is another piece of the authentic Einsteinian spirit, from RSGT Appendix V (p. 150 in my 164 page book), where he speaks of what we now call "the 4-dimensional spacetime continuum" - his parody of 3D space and 1D time.
Einstein said:
Since there exist in this four-dimensional structure no longer any sections which represent "now" objectively, the concepts of happening and becoming are indeed not completely suspended, but yet complicated. It appears therefore more natural to think of physical reality as a four-dimensional existence, instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a three-dimensional existence.
An anti-Darwin, anti-evolutionary spirit rules.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
I am waiting, in fact positively eager, for you to change my mind about Einstein. Build us a spaceship to visit the stars tomorrow. I'm ready to leave this crazy planet anytime.

Defending any part of the Freemasonic establishment, including Einstein, is boring and is not really part of the Postflavian mission statement.

Only problem is, the demonstration needs to be credible. This website is marginalized enough as it is. We aren't going to take on Einstein (and all of modern physics) if we don't have a battle ready sword or light saber.

the One and Only Einstein said:
...the concepts of happening and becoming are indeed not completely suspended, but yet complicated.
An anti-Darwin spirit? Really? He says the concepts of events in time are not suspended, albeit complicated. So surely there's room for Darwin and evolution in this complicated Einsteinian space time continuum?

Asking the search engine oracle, it seems that Einstein was undecided about the debate between Darwin and Lamarck, but there is at least one (poorly sourced) Darwin-favorable quote:

...in 1939, speaking at Princeton Theological Seminary, Einstein famously decried conflicts arising “when a religious community insists on the absolute truthfulness of all statements recorded in the Bible.” The result of such an insistence, he explained, is “an intervention on the part of religion into the sphere of science; this is where the struggle of the Church against the doctrines of Galileo and Darwin belongs.”
 
Last edited:

Claude Badley

Registered Guest
Fascist
We have to learn the science before any meaningful space travel is possible...
I am waiting, in fact positively eager, for you to change my mind. Please build us a spaceship to visit the stars tomorrow. I'm ready to leave this crazy planet anytime.
...since this means accepting an infinite universe, whereas the Einsteinian pseudouniverse can only ever be finite - and therefore space travel finite (e.g. already complete with the Moon trips since Mars is too far at 20 lightminutes away:eek:) - and ultimate escape futile.

An anti-Darwin spirit? Really? He says the concepts of events in time are not suspended, albeit complicated. So surely there's room for Darwin and evolution in this complicated Einsteinian space time continuum?
There certainly is room in the fantasy world of the Einsteinian space-time continuum. But I mean our physical universe, and that is what Einstein means too, therefore:

No there is NOT. For Einstein there can only be the unrolling of a predetermined plan - the Block Universe of Parmenides - where chance is denied and everything is absolutely necessary, all worked out to the finest detail in advance. A predestination** without a personal God. Or as Einstein wrote on October 26th 1929 – the very weekend of the Great Wall Street crash:
Einstein oraculizing in Bhagwan orange said:
I claim credit for nothing. Everything is determined, the beginning as well as the end, by forces over which we have no control. It is determined for the insect as well as for the star. Human beings, vegetables, or cosmic dust, we all dance to a mysterious tune, intoned in the distance by an invisible piper.
The invisible piper is a metaphor - though it could be extended to the Horst Wessel Song - a predestination Einstein definitely did not like!:D

IOW Einstein flatly denied chance - i.e. disorder - of any sort in nature, saying that it was only "hidden necessity", the mysterious tune from this invisible piper! A fantasy universe where everything is predetermined absolutely and completely from the Big Bang, and even - this one's for you Seeker and Richard - even the Bayeux Tapestry, sown to its very finest details.o_O

Asking the search engine oracle, it seems that Einstein was undecided about the debate between Darwin and Lamarck, but there is at least one (poorly sourced) Darwin-favorable quote:...in 1939, speaking at Princeton Theological Seminary, Einstein famously decried conflicts arising “when a religious community insists on the absolute truthfulness of all statements recorded in the Bible.” The result of such an insistence, he explained, is “an intervention on the part of religion into the sphere of science; this is where the struggle of the Church against the doctrines of Galileo and Darwin belongs.”
From the same source there Einstein only added, “The exact sciences may call the whole world their fatherland". By "exact sciences" he means those subject to mathematical efforts to reduce to them to mere determinism, everything mathematically exactly described from the Big Bang, i.e. mathematical reductionism, mere quantification as the basis for difference - and therefore biological evolution of the Darwin type, and the historical sciences generally, is specifically EXCLUDED.

As we have already shown that Einstein is anti-Galileo, that he is anti-Darwin too follows ineluctably from your poorly-sourced oracle,

Yours faithfully
Claude

**(This primarily for Richard's benefit) And by predestination I mean absolute predestination not just the Calvinist kind where only the good are predestined to salvation whereas the bad are lost thru preterition, i.e. falling by the wayside even though God counts every hair on everyone's head (Luke 12:7) and even every sparrow (Matthew 10:29) with JC saying "Ye are of more value than many sparrows" (Matthew 10:31). So let us note that Arundhati Roi would observe that this is The God of Small Things indeed - only a bunch of sparrow-brained Christians to be saved, since the Flavian-crony authors think contemptuously of humans along Einsteinian lines i.e. that the difference between humans and sparrows is merely quantitative:p.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
For Einstein there can only be the unrolling of a predetermined plan - the Block Universe of Parmenides - where chance is denied and everything is absolutely necessary, all worked out to the finest detail in advance.
Another digression, eh?. There's no reason that evolution, either Lamarckian or Darwinian, couldn't occur in a predetermined fashion, as Einstein clearly believed. And for that matter, no reason that space travel can't occur within a finite universe with a speed limit.

But rather than getting on with building us a spaceship, now you're just making excuses, and bringing up Einstein's great error. Yes, Einstein rejected quantum mechanics. Anyone who wants to get a modern physics paper past peer review, is going to be forced to implicitly renounce Einstein's views about the predestined universe, notwithstanding his great stature second only to god himself.
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Sadly... I am too much of a dunderhead to know why PDE was rejected by physics journals.
Even being the dunderhead that I am, I have come up with an objection. In general, photons are generated within an inertial frame of reference by some artifact which has a characteristic wavelength. That is, by harmonic oscillators of various types. Thermal sources produce a distribution of wavelengths, but even they have a characteristic wavelength of peak amplitude. Also, photons can be passed through filters of characteristic wavelengths. So it follows that the wavelength of a photon is a fixed quantity in its originating frame of reference. The frequency of the photon is not a variable in the wave function of the photon, but rather it is a fixed parameter, and thus there is nothing to be collapsed.
 
Last edited:

Claude Badley

Registered Guest
Fascist
Another digression, eh?. There's no reason that evolution, either Lamarckian or Darwinian, couldn't occur in a predetermined fashion, as Einstein clearly believed.
In that case it is not Darwinian evolution, not natural selection from alternatives that nature throws up haphazardly - i.e. from natural disorder - both in the selection (i.e. reason for reproductive failure) and the origin of the variation in the first place. I forgive you for this error ONLY because the converse view of evolution being merely a predetermined plan, is that of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and their guru Daniel Dennett, all of whom argue for only necessity being science and chance or disorder to be a non-scientific concept.
And for that matter, no reason that space travel can't occur within a finite universe with a speed limit.
Here you haven't grasped the point Jerry. If humans are unable to travel faster than light then a round-trip journey to alpha-Centauri would take over 9 years - longer than the round-the-world trips of scientific expeditions e.g. Charles Darwin on the Beagle. And who wants to be cooped up in a spaceship for that long, especially as most of it would be traveling too and from. Besides, there is nothing much in the radius of 20 lightyears - no sunlike stars therefore almost certainly no suitable earthlike planets, so any such space travel would be a futile gesture (if you believe Einstein).

Even Mars, with the 20 lightminute delay for signals, is ruled out because it would take over 40 minutes for ground control to contact the astronauts if trouble broke out - hence is impractical too. Rubbish like cosmic wormholes and spacetime warps is mere science fiction. Therefore there can be NO meaningful space travel in an Einsteinian universe. To claim otherwise is to lie to yourself.:cool:
But rather than getting on with building us a spaceship, now you're just making excuses, and bringing up Einstein's great error. Yes, Einstein rejected quantum mechanics. Anyone who wants to get a modern physics paper past peer review, is going to be forced to implicitly renounce Einstein's views about the predestined universe, notwithstanding his great stature second only to god himself.
You clearly are NOT aware of those scientists who reject a Parmenidean predestined universe - including Ilya Prigogine and Eric Lerner. You might reply that they accept SR (Special Relativity) - and they are wrong to do so - but they reject General Relativity (GR), which itself is dependent upon SR, and which I have also proven to be bunk in what it predicts.

It makes two predictions for which I have instead found the correct answers - but once again cannot publish them as the gurus do not want to know the truth. And this is why there is and will be no space race and no escaping the Earth's environmental collapse under the Freemasonic Einstein regime that dominates the world today. Rather, it will be a fight over shrinking resources as even Eric Lerner cannot get all the funding he needs.

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Claude Badley

Registered Guest
Fascist
About the Photon-Doppler-Ensemble
Even being the monocled dunderhead that I am, I have come up with an objection. In general, photons are generated within an inertial frame of reference by some artifact which has a characteristic wavelength. That is, by harmonic oscillators of various types.
An inertial reference frame is one WITHOUT inertial forces acting - no gravity, no inertia, no acceleration nor deceleration. The 'harmonic oscillations' you refer to are more often than not atomic circling motions seen side on, though amounting to the same thing.

You now discuss black body radiation.
Thermal sources produce a distribution of wavelengths, but even they have a characteristic wavelength of peak amplitude.
That's right, the hotter the object the more the peak amplitude lies in shorter wavelengths. Why the ring on an electric stove turns red with heating - but the sun is hotter still (yellow) and a welding arc still hotter (bluish). The most important fact here is the quantum theory was based upon this thermodynamic observation of black body radiation - yet you can find physicists e.g. Per Bak, who get everything back-to-front. E.g. he describes quantum theory as fundamental but thermodynamics as merely "phenomenological" (i.e. crude and superficial).
Also, photons can be passed through filters of characteristic wavelengths. So it follows that the wavelength of a photon is a fixed quantity in its originating frame of reference.
That is right: there is an emission wavelength, or, in the case of black body radiation, an emission spectrum with the peak emission at a certain wavelength. In normal laboratory conditions the source and the filter are mutually static of course!:)
[Thus] the frequency of the photon is not a variable in the wave function of the photon, but rather it is a fixed parameter, and thus there is nothing to be collapsed.
This last statement of yours is fundamentally erroneous. So let me remind you that frequency and wavelength are invert concepts where frequency is 1/wavelength and vice versa.

Perchance then you've heard of the Doppler Effect in light,? Or have the last eight pages been a complete waste in your tiny mind? The Doppler Effect means that the frequency of a photon varies with observer motion i.e. to state the same thing: the wavelength and the frequency vary inversely with source-observer motion - relative motion of course as Galileo avers!:D

So will you now ask more about the PDE (the colourful original, not the grey stuff) or do you want to investigate GR instead? I'm ready for both:) - at least if you can remember some of the lessons from the last 8 pages.:rolleyes:

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Claude Badley

Registered Guest
Fascist
General Relativity (GR) is supposedly proven by two observations - the Deflection of Light by Gravity and the Anomalous Perihelion Shift of Mercury. Both Einsteinian explanations are wrong of course but I will deal with the latter for the present.:cool:

Here is the original General Relativity paper by Einstein claiming to explain the Anomalous Perihelion Shift of Mercury. Despite appearances in the link, the text is not in French but was translated in the USA and yet published in English by a Russian!:D

http://etienneklein.fr/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Relativité-générale.pdf

This translation seems to be the ONLY one in English - thank you Vladimir Putin!:rolleyes:

This is the paper they DON'T want you to know about. Rather, they prefer to serve up a later text titled "The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity" (found in The Principle of Relativity pp. 109-164), full of tensor trash, where the equation* for the anomalous portion of Mercury's perihelion (ϖ) is plonked in front of the reader as the supposed result of the "Christoffel Offal" (i.e. reworked tensor trash).

In contrast, the original paper, titled "Explanation of the Perihelion Motion of Mercury from General Relativity Theory" (Erklärung der Perihelbewegung des Merkur aus der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie) reveals Einstein's hidden presumptions - the necessary "adjustments" required to work out his line of BS to prove his explanation for Mercury's Anomalous Perihelion Shift. I'll give you a clue: I'll provide below the significant piece of original German text (the whole paragraph put here in Einstein-Bhagwan orange of course) and you can then read the English in that sole English translation. It is on p. 4 there, under the heading 'The Gravitational Field', part of the original journal article on p. 832 - but can you spot Einstein's fatal mistake?
Big Al Einstein in psychedelic Bhagwan orange said:
Es befinde sich im Anfangspunkt des Koordinatensystems ein Massenpunkt (die Sonne). Das Gravitationsfeld, welches dieser Massenpunkt erzeugt, kann aus diesen Gleichungen durch sukzessive Approximation berechnet werden.
A clue! In the 19th century before Einstein's BS, the question of Mercury's anomalous perihelion shift was termed "the Mystery of Planet Vulcan".:)


Yours faithfully
Claude

*This ridiculous equation is:

ϖ = 24π³a²/T²c²(1-e²)

π - the ratio of diameter to circumference of a circle.
a - length of the semimajor axis of the orbit of Mercury.
T - time of revolution of Mercury in seconds.
c - speed of light.
e - eccentricity of Mercury's orbit.

PS: Most of my source material comes from N. T. Roseveare, Mercury's Perihelion from Le Verrier to Einstein, Clarendon, Press, Oxford (1982). My copy is an ex-library book from Illinois Institute of Technology, bad for them I think as I cannot find the book online!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
I forgive you for this error ONLY because the converse view of evolution being merely a predetermined plan, is that of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and their guru Daniel Dennett, all of whom argue for only necessity being science and chance or disorder to be a non-scientific concept.
Really we can't even all agree on whether this afternoon is predestined or not. I found one source that says "Dennett accepts the results of modern physics and does not deny the existence of quantum randomness" (p. 328), although Dennett is said to argue that one couldn't tell the difference between an actual quantum neural computation, vs. a simulation using a pseudo-random number generation.

Therefore there can be NO meaningful space travel in an Einsteinian universe.
I never said it would be easy. But, are you familiar with the O'Neill space colonization plan, which has now been enthusiastically adopted and backed by Jeff Bezos? There's plenty of room in geosynchronous orbit for human habitat, and plenty of raw materials in asteroids to mine. If the human race can avoid extinction in the next few years, it could work. Right?? Umm.... I suppose I can see some practical difficulties, but what is it about this which is impossible under Einsteinian constraints?

https://www.businessinsider.com/jeff-bezos-proposes-floating-colonies-with-weather-as-good-as-maui-2019-5?op=1



...even Eric Lerner cannot get all the funding he needs.
I know, and even yours truly, Mr. Postflavian himself, is challenged at fundraising. So cry me a river.

What Eric Lerner really needs, at age 72, is a capable younger disciple. Does he have one, do you know?

This last statement of yours is fundamentally erroneous... So let me remind you that frequency and wavelength are invert concepts where frequency is 1/wavelength and vice versa.
It may be erroneous, but it's my story and I'm sticking to it. At least until you show me experimental evidence that it's wrong. Where is there anything I've said that contradicts that frequency = 1/wavelength?

...do you want to investigate GR instead?
I'm afraid that at least for now, I can't participate intelligently in a discussion about general relativity. I didn't study it in school and I don't know anything about it beyond the most basic introductory level.
 
Last edited:

Claude Badley

Registered Guest
Fascist
The Dennett material is the most important so I'll deal with it separately.

Yet when I show that no meaningful space travel is possible under Einsteinian belief you serve up mere fantasy.
I never said it would be easy. But, are you familiar with the O'Neill space colonization plan, which has now been enthusiastically adopted and backed by Jeff Bezos? There's plenty of room in geosynchronous orbit for human habitat, and plenty of raw materials in asteroids to mine. If the human race can avoid extinction in the next few years, it could work. Right?? Umm.... I suppose I can see some practical difficulties, but what is it about this which is impossible under Einsteinian constraints?
The energy to haul up all the material into geostationary orbit in order to create the "habitable ring" of land indicated in your drawing. Presumably you will have to teach toddlers to run around with sticky tape, taping up the transparent walls to prevent the escape of atmospheric-pressured air (i.e. the old finger-in-the-dyke story, you Flying Dutchman you). Hence your reply is merely a jest as once again, even if achieved, mankind could still not progress further due to Einsteinian prejudice that nothing can travel faster than light.:)

Fundraising of course is under the control of the pro-Einstein Freemasonic globalizing elites...
I know, and even yours truly, Mr. Postflavian himself, is challenged at fundraising. So cry me a river.

What Eric Lerner really needs, at age 72, is a capable younger disciple. Does he have one, do you know?
...and it these people whose confidence and whose grip over the world has to be broken.


The frequency of the photon is not a variable in the wave function of the photon, but rather it is a fixed parameter, and thus there is nothing to be collapsed.

It may be erroneous, but it's my story and I'm sticking to it. At least until you show me experimental evidence that it's wrong. [I already have done that with Fizeau - CB] Where is there anything I've said that contradicts that frequency = 1/wavelength?
Read your statement in red again. It denies that frequency/wavelength can change. Hence it denies the Doppler Effect in light even though it was proven in the 19th century. In fact the Doppler Effect in light from streaming subatomic particles (canal rays) was shown by the 'other' pro-Nazi Nobel Prizewinning physicist Johannes Stark about 1900.

I can readily understand your last statement as the usual situation for people...
I'm afraid that at least for now, I can't participate intelligently in a discussion about general relativity.[*] I didn't study it in school and I don't know anything about it beyond the most basic introductory level.
...but my task is to show that GR is simply a media-promoted scam, not science.

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Claude Badley

Registered Guest
Fascist
Disorder in nature is fundamentally denied by modern scientists and their philosophist supporters such as Daniel Dennett - especially because it CANNOT be modelled mathematically (unlike deterministic chaos theory).
Really we can't even all agree on whether this afternoon is predestined or not.
Statements such as this covertly imply that everything, including our thoughts and feelings, are controlled and merely secondary manifestations of a wholly ordered universe (Freemasonry's 'Great Architect' as the universe itself - Deism & Pantheism - not a personal god) absolutely causing and controlling human thoughts. It implies that the mind is merely secondary NOT in the general materialist sense that one must have a brain to think, but in the MONIST materialist sense that the universe is an integral whole, such that our thoughts and feelings are the inevitable product of whatever the arrangement of matter in the universe and the "inexorable laws" that control everything.*
I found one source that says "Dennett accepts the results of modern physics and does not deny the existence of quantum randomness" (p. 328), although Dennett is said to argue that one couldn't tell the difference between an actual quantum neural computation, vs. a simulation using a pseudo-random number generation.
The first statement about Dennett might be true, even though the later statement about his ideas contradicts it; but it is very good that you have uncovered the essential doublethink in Dennett's agenda. DDDD - the Deceitful Doublethink of Dan Dennett a.k.a. 'Compatibilism' - though you clearly do NOT understand the wider implications.

This is because Dennett also entertains the view of Sir Karl Popper who accepts determinism generally as the ideal scientific enterprise but also admits acausal chance, that everything breaks down such as to deny determinism overall. However for Popper the reason for the breakdown of determinism is that the chance event that breaks determinism is acausal, i.e. it has no physical cause therefore cannot be investigated by science - since there is nothing scientific to investigate. This is Popper's sly way of reintroducing religion - to patch up the erratic acausal but otherwise predetermined material universe. Dennett of course prefers "neural computations", complete determinism more to his liking.

So no, this afternoon is NOT predestined. We accept that it will be because of what we have experienced before - including the evolution of plants and animals indicating stable climatic conditions - and that astronomers have not found a large planet or asteroid to strike the Earth before this afternoon. The point of course is that if a large body struck the Earth - say a Moon-sized body much larger than the Chixulub asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs, it would knock the Earth out of its orbit, tilting its axis and also altering its rotation, rendering the notions of "afternoon" and "morning" redundant as dust clouds filled the atmosphere and humans died off quickly from shattering earthquakes.

What you don't understand are the implications of determinism - the notion of Parmenides' Block Universe where the future is laid out absolutely by the past (the Big Bang nowadays) and supposed all-controlling inexorable laws (idealized as Newtonian gravity). This also means that human free will and the capacity to change our fate is rendered impossible, because ordinary humans who accept such deterministic teachings (since they are covertly peddled everywhere) then fall into mass passivity. Einstein dedicatedly pursued this agenda in order to disempower and befuddle the masses!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
The energy to haul up all the material into geostationary orbit in order to create the "habitable ring" of land indicated in your drawing.
The materials are to be mined from convenient nearby asteroids and comets as they fly by, or perhaps from the Moon. A significant design goal is to minimize the amount of material raised from Earth's gravity well.

It denies that frequency/wavelength can change. Hence it denies the Doppler Effect in light even though it was proven in the 19th century.
It seems that I have to spell out every single element of the Einsteinian consensus for you, otherwise you accuse me of Nazi trickery. I carefully qualified my remarks by stating that I was referring to a single inertial frame of reference. And within said frame, a photon's wave-like nature propagates through space, thus denoting a space-time structure. In a different frame, that wave-like structure is as it is perceived in the moving frame, thus becoming relatively stretched or compressed, and its frequency with respect to a point in the moving frame of reference changes likewise. This is the classical mechanical doppler effect. If the velocity of the moving frame approaches light speed, or if extreme accuracy is required, the frames must be adjusted for length contraction and time dilation.

And if you don't like it, don't blame me, blame those other Einsteinians behind the tree.
 
Last edited:

Claude Badley

Registered Guest
Fascist
Beginning with the "great habitable centrifugal ring" that is to surround the Earth...
The materials are to be mined from convenient nearby asteroids and comets as they fly by, or perhaps from the Moon. A significant design goal is to minimize the amount of material raised from Earth's gravity well.
...it is merely fictional because the function of plasma (hot ionized gases) in outer space is not properly understood, hence the 'transparent Perspex-like shell' keeping the atmosphere in has to be much more than strengthened glass. You may as well have a (Jacob's) latter or a stairway to heaven pictured, since we on Earth are going to be caught by the energy-&-environmental crisis by mid-century long before such a contraption could ever be built.

Jerry said:
I carefully qualified my remarks by stating that I was referring to a single inertial frame of reference. And within said frame, a photon's wave-like nature propagates through space, thus denoting a space-time structure.
The last highlighted statement implies belief in SR so is not genuine physics. Your first statement is trivial and evasive since the Doppler Effect is revealed when an object in motion relative to the source detects a different wavelength i.e. the other object is in a "different inertial reference frame."

Your original quoted statement viz. "the frequency of the photon is not a variable in the wave function of the photon, but rather it is a fixed parameter, and thus there is nothing to be collapsed" certainly referred to a photon's formation in a given reference frame, but the term "wave function of the photon" does NOT imply merely a "wave" ONLY in the originally "given reference frame" in which the photon was emitted. The whole notion of reference frame is a mathematical construct designed by Einstein's predecessors to reduce the issue to one of mathematics, but the photon's material content is NOT confined to any one reference frame. That you are implicitly thinking of it in this narrow way is why you claim it to be a "fixed parameter and thus there is nothing to be collapsed." Your words imply that there is no Doppler Ensemble and hence no Doppler Effect either, light being back to black-&-white (or shades of grey) waves.:rolleyes:

Your next phrase is comically misleading...
Jerry said:
In a different frame, that wave-like structure is as it is perceived in the moving frame, thus becoming relatively stretched or compressed, and its frequency with respect to a point in the moving frame of reference changes likewise. This is the classical mechanical doppler effect.
...since the highlighted underlined phrase indicates that you are thinking ONLY about the "classic mechanical Doppler effect" as you state more than clearly. However the classic mechanical Doppler Effect only refers to sound and similar waves (e.g. earthquake P waves).:oops:

Such classic Doppler Effect waves are longitudinal - moving back and forth in the direction of motion. This is NOT the case with light. Light, like water waves (including tsunamis) and earthquake S waves (including plasma waves on the sun) comprise transverse wave motion - motion from side to side at right angles to the direction of motion. Therefore your description above merely bespeaks your ignorance of lightwave motion.

If the velocity of the moving frame approaches light speed, or if extreme accuracy is required, the frames must be adjusted for length contraction and time dilation.

And if you don't like it, don't blame me, blame those other Einsteinians behind the tree
.
Lorentz et al. fantasize about the stagnant ether (i.e. the plenum = Newton's absolute space) which propagated light. (And it is the plenum, and the belief therein, that creates the logical paradoxes via invoking TD&LC*) But light is not propagated, it is projected from a source, the so-called wave-function (an overly mathematical term) comprising all possible wavelengths traveling at speeds proportional to their wavelength. With this realization we see SR to be redundant nonsense, replaced by PDE theory.

Yours faithfully
Claude

*So when Einstein abolished the plenum (stagnant aether) he replaced it merely with the observer, i.e. observer-solipsism, each moving observer moving in his own universe without objective connection to other observers, only subjective mathematical fantasies like spacetime. Hence the difference between the Einsteinian mathematics and genuine physics is fundamental!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Claude Badley

Registered Guest
Fascist
Nature is not predetermined. It is fundamentally disordered, hence precise prediction is NOT possible since causality provides only general guides not absolute ones.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
...the 'transparent Perspex-like shell' keeping the atmosphere in has to be much more than strengthened glass.... we on Earth are going to be caught by the energy-&-environmental crisis by mid-century long before such a contraption could ever be built.
These are certainly significant engineering & logistical objections, and I'm not saying I think Bezos is likely to succeed with this project in our lifetimes. But my point was simply that Einsteinian physics does not prevent endeavors such as this.

While the electric and magnetic fields in the wave are transverse, the energy carried by said fields propagates forward in the direction of motion of the wave. Energy and mass are, of course, equivalent. Therefore the wave is also longitudinal, carrying both mass and energy, and all my remarks about the doppler effect are directly applicable.
 
Last edited:

Claude Badley

Registered Guest
Fascist
About Bezos "habitable Ring around the Earth"
These are certainly significant engineering & logistical objections, and I'm not saying I think Bezos is likely to succeed with this project in our lifetimes. But my point was simply that Einsteinian physics does not prevent endeavors such as this.
Einsteinian so-called physics is comfortable with and harmonize with all sorts of BS. If you believe in mutual TD&LC, you'll believe anything. A risky and failed expedition to Mars - 20 lightminutes away and using only electromagnetic communication (since Big Al says "nothing can travel faster than light") - will only be a pipe-dream since if it actually happened, the resulting disaster and global grief would be enough to overthrow the governments and private companies who sponsored such an idea. For those of us old enough to remember it - how sick we all felt, Soviet Russians too, when we thought that the Apollo 13 crew would die in space.

While the electric and magnetic fields in the wave are transverse, the energy carried by said fields propagates forward in the direction of motion of the wave. Energy and mass are, of course, equivalent. Therefore the wave is also longitudinal, carrying both mass and energy, and all my remarks about the doppler effect are directly applicable.
But this "longitudinal energy transfer" is in motion always, so is not confined to "one reference frame" to use Einstein's terminology. The photon does not "stress and compress" with merely a pre-labelled wavelength in one reference frame - implying the false notion of light "propagating", a term implying a stagnant light-bearing aether. Rather, light is projected as Walter Ritz saw, the longer the wavelength the faster its motion. The emission wavelength of a photon is instantly accompanied by all possible wavelengths for said photon - otherwise the Doppler Effect in light is inexplicable.

Hence your remarks about the Doppler Effect in light are not applicable. Wavelengths are not mere shades of grey or black & white! The Einsteinian analogy of "riding on a light beam" to gradually speed up to the speed of said light beam - such as I was taught in my final high school year - is a grave misconception of the actual nature of light.

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
I have edited this thread (since its recent restart) to eliminate all abusive aspects, and each and every reference to fascist politics. This thread is for technical discussions only. We will discuss fascist politics elsewhere, if at all.
 
Last edited:

Claude Badley

Registered Guest
Fascist
Thank goodness I saved my post elsewhere - to protect it from neutering...so I will be using it in future and in my book since you cannot even address the issues clearly. You need to sleep on it and read Harvey's book too.:)

Yours sincerely,
Claude Badley
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top