nakayama

In outer space, an observer observes a star. When observer jets out gas and moves along the light path (in different uniform motions), frequency of star light changes.

However, if light speed is constant (to observer), wave length of the light path (from observer to the star) changes also (from the formula : light speed = frequency x wave length). And Number of waves changes also. Impossible !! Note : Wave length is inverse number of wave number.

http://www.geocities.co.jp/Technopolis/2561/eng.html

P.S. i can’t receive E-mail. i don’t have PC.

Amazing!

You are opposing a general accepted theory in physics!

I know relativity is not easy to understand. But if you know that technology is based on it (i.e. for GPS calculations that are made to find out where on earth you are, must be corrected for relativistic effects, otherwise the outcomes would be wrong on many, many meters!). That you cannot imagine how this works is not a very good argument. Start reading! Einstein himself wrote a small but quite understandable book about his theories. There are many more simple introductions. The basis ideas you can handle with secondary school math. Read them, and if there are parts you still do not understand, get in touch with a physics teacher.

GdB

I don’t exactly follow your argument. That said, your kinds of arguments were brought up all the time around when Einstein proposed his theory of relativity. They were all overcome. I suggest you follow GdB’s advice and sign up for a local class in physics, or get some good books on the history of Einstein’s theory.

It sounds to me as if Nakayama is describing the Doppler shift of light.  Or am I missing something?

Allow me to explain the problem once more, please.

Problem is about red-shift (blue-shift) or Doppler effect (caused by observer’s motion. not relative but observer’s motion !!). If following both are right, what does happen on the light path ??
* Constancy of light speed (to observer)
* light speed = frequency x wave length

Wave length may change. Wave number may change also. Density of waves (of the light path that leads to the star ??) may be changed by observer’s motion. Unimaginable !! (our understandings must be wrong !!).

Still don’t understand. Why is it unimaginable that the wavelength or frequency would change depending on an observer’s motion? Indeed, that’s exactly what relativity tells us: that the length of an object in the direction of motion is relative to that motion.

Did you have a look here?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect

If you see the error, then please say so!
But take care. That you cannot imagine how this works, is not a good argument. Imagining a world without frames of reference is very difficult. I already read a lot of books that promise to explain it the simple way but then get lost at some point…

But ‘the master himself’ is pretty reliable:

Einstein’s booklet on relativity

To administrator,

Star light is coming. Can we to make (exert) any effect on this coming light path ?? We can’t (i think so) !! Wave length of star light may be changed only by lens or the like (or by reflection). Established theory (on light speed) is wrong, i believe.

To Mr. GbB,

i have read several books on anti-relativity. These (written by Japanese amateurs) seemed very reasonable to me. i have read about 300 books on relativity (read part only on behavior of light). These seemed not reasonable.

dougsmith - 11 December 2007 05:49 AM

I don’t exactly follow your argument. That said, your kinds of arguments were brought up all the time around when Einstein proposed his theory of relativity. They were all overcome. I suggest you follow GdB’s advice and sign up for a local class in physics, or get some good books on the history of Einstein’s theory.

Relativity is reported to the public to use relativity but there is a crack in that story.  There is a documentary coming out in 2008 funded in part by a pretty reputable GPS scientist who knows they do not in fact use relativity in the calculations.  The documentary is following a growing trend of skeptic scientists who are challenging Einstein’s special relativity as invalid, as well as other “theoretical” theories in the 20th century.  Einstein started a bad precidence by dictacting what the universe should do and then said go find it.  That is not using the scientific method.

The documentary also looks at the dogma of not being able to challenge established ideas, proof that the establishment says exists but turns out to be more smoke than fire, and an educational system that does not allow questioning of the very “theoretical” which few experimentalists and engineers believe.  The movie delves into this and is very critical of the physics mainstream not only about relativity, but the big bang, black holes, worm holes etc. There are even nobel laureates who critisize the big bang under such simple arguments as what is next to the universe that is the size of a pea?  Is it NOT the universe?  The cricisms are mounting from the experimentalists who simply don’t by much of “theoretical” physics.

The documentary movie’s director has found some facts that even mainstream science says are not true when it comes to special relativity and some say it will be dead in 10 years.

I’m surprised at the skeptic societies in that they certainly and rightfully are skeptics on “magic” and religion, but seem to accept mainstream physics and astronomy and other science whole-hardily without inquery, investigation, and skepticism.  The dissident scientists are not part of the religious movement of ID.  They are real skeptics that go and look at the paradoxes of relativity and the big bang and dark matter and start question it and are starting to come up with answers to show these things may have wrong assumptions.

For instance, the universe is eternal and cyclic not in a big bang, but in life cycles of galaxies, stars, planets.  Black holes are really super dense objects, not relativistic.  And the earth is growing and plate tectonics must be revise.

Lots of stuff to be a true skeptic about instead of fighting the super natural and religion which is and will never be in science.

Hi Moose and Nakayama,

GPS was just an example that I heard of. You must realise that when a scientific theory is a basis of technology, that there is not much more to be sceptic about. Only one question may always be asked again: where is the border of the theory? Is it valid under all circumstances? And there we know there are some problems that indicate that the present forms of relativity and quantum physics are not the last word about the physical universe.

BUT: when particle accelerators are build, where particles must be pushed at exactly the right moment, an this thechnology works (i.e. at the calculated times showers of partices enter the detectors), and for these calculations to be correct one needs relativity, then there is not much more to question about it. When gravitational lenses are photographed, when atomic clocks show different times when they relatively move, when decay times of subatomic partices relate to their velocities, when the motion of Merury is explained, when the relation between electric and magnetic fields cannot be understood fully without relativity, what is there to question?

There is no dogmatism here, just a lot of empirical evidence, and of mathematical consistency.

It seems that when our fundamental intuitions about space and time are questioned, some people get insecure (ups, this is ad hominum…). My opinion on that: relativity has no influence on our normal life assumptions. Nobody will notice It is only in the higher ‘artefacts’ of technology that it has influence on us.

GdB

Moose, one does not do serious science by filming documentaries. If the people behind this venture have real data and theory to go on, they should have brought it to the physics community, in peer-reviewed publications, and done the heavy lifting to convince other scientists. If they are right, they will likely get a Nobel.

It has been known ever since the early part of the 20th century that relativity and quantum mechanics do not fit well together. In particular there is no good theory of quantum gravity. So something somewhere will need to be altered slightly to get a true “theory of everything”. But filmmakers who deride “mainstream science” are almost universally cranks. Certainly anyone who claims that the earth is growing is a crank.

BTW, which filmmaker is this? And what’s the name of the documentary?

Einstein started a bad precidence by dictacting what the universe should do and then said go find it. That is not using the scientific method.

Really? Sounds like the process to design an experiment to me… you know, falsifiability and all this kind of stuff.

Barto - 17 December 2007 06:34 AM

Einstein started a bad precidence by dictacting what the universe should do and then said go find it. That is not using the scientific method.

Really? Sounds like the process to design an experiment to me… you know, falsifiability and all this kind of stuff.

You are right. The idea that time and length must change was already proposed by Lorentz and Fitzgerald. (So that is why these equations are called Lorenz transformations.) But Lorenz introduced them to make an ad hoc explanation of the Michelson/Morley experiment. It had no ground in any known physics.

Einstein came with his postulates: that the velocity of light is constant for every observer, and that there is no absolute frame of reference. From there he could derive the Lorentz equations, AND, Moose, a lot more. It was all verified… Also, some other physicists were already very close to relativity, e.g. Poincaré. It was so to say ‘in the air’. There were more problems than the Michelson/Morley experiment. Einstein only references very short to it in his first article about relativity. It mainly discussed how to describe magnetic and electric forces for observers who are moving relative to electrical charges in a consistent way.

For the rest, Nakayama and Moose, google for the ‘Relativity FAQ’ of Usenet, and you find a lot of proves.

BTW I think this thread is in the right forum.

GdB

GdB - 17 December 2007 08:37 AM

BTW I think this thread is in the right forum.
GdB

Of course, it satisfies all the requeriments: the ‘unwillingness to challenge corporations’ argument, a bit of Galileo syndrome (I bet his name would arise if we continue with this ‘debunk’ to relativity ), the ‘someone very smart and educated says it is the way I say it is’ argument, the ‘you’ll see in the future’ argument ... am I missing any requirement?

Talking about Poincaré, I was allways amazed how close he was. I guess you allready know this http://www.thesciencebookstore.com/etext/poincarephysics.html

In writings on relativity, GPS, GPS are. But ORBIS or speed gun isn’t. Never !!

Two light paths are coming from a star. These are parallel (and close to). One is coming to observer A (moving on the light path at high speed), one is coming to observer B (moving on the light path at low speed). Wave length/wave number of two lights may be the same, and light speed may not be the same (then frequency is not the same. Note : light speed = frequency x wave length), i think.

i have nothing to write more. It’s my last post. Sorry, my English was bad. Thank you.

GdB - 17 December 2007 04:02 AM

Hi Moose and Nakayama,

GPS was just an example that I heard of. You must realise that when a scientific theory is a basis of technology, that there is not much more to be sceptic about. Only one question may always be asked again: where is the border of the theory? Is it valid under all circumstances? And there we know there are some problems that indicate that the present forms of relativity and quantum physics are not the last word about the physical universe.

L. Essen, the inventor of the atomic clock -you cannot mess with him- wrote some articles discrediting the experiments made by Relativists with his invention. He wrote letters to the journal Nature in 1977, also in 1988, where he said, “Einstein’s theory of relativity is invalidated by its internal errors...Einstein’s use of a thought experiment, together with his ignorance of experimental techniques, gave a result which fooled himself and generations of scientists...claims frequently made that the theory is supported by experimental evidence do not withstand a close scrutinity...Insofar as the theory is thought to explain the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment I am inclined to agree with Soddy that it is a swindle; and I do not think Rutherford would have regarded it as a joke, had he realised how it would retard the national development of science.”

THe farse of Relativity has been hidden by fanatics who want to impose their imaginations over the dominions of science.

BUT: when particle accelerators are build, where particles must be pushed at exactly the right moment, an this thechnology works (i.e. at the calculated times showers of partices enter the detectors), and for these calculations to be correct one needs relativity,

Relativity is not necessary to explain that particles are affected by speed in several ways. Such is a natural process and not a magical event where a non physically existing time is affected.

then there is not much more to question about it.

In your dreams, such is your wish. Reality is that scientists are now waking up from the dream of Relativity and are questioning its validity. Something which is an essential step in science: the continued review of the validity of theories.

When gravitational lenses are photographed,

Illusions created by distance by the presence of gases and particles in space. We ourselves have an atmospheric lense which create the illusion that the Sun, moom and stars are located right where we see them. Reality is that all the bodies located outside our atmosphere are some degree apart from our focus. The displacement of their images is caused bt=y the difference the outer space with greater vacuum and our atmosphere with several gases inside of it.

Such “gravitational lenses” are obsolete ideas. Einstein believed in such events by ignorance. Einstein didn’t know that between the Sun and earth there are gases and particles, specially surrounding the circle of the Sun.

The displacement of images is a simple process of refraction, this is to say, light passing through two mediums of different density. The images reflect clearly this natural phenomena, there are views of stars or galaxies refleike a simplected several times in the gases around the scene, as a simple mirage duplicated in the interior of a sphere surface.

when atomic clocks show different times when they relatively move,

Atomic clocks cannot be tested on ground against low gravity and acceleration. Even guys from NASA recognize that acceleration can affect the functional work of attomic clocks.

when decay times of subatomic partices relate to their velocities,

Speed affecting the particle, a common phenomena.

when the motion of Merury is explained,

Le Verrier aded an imaginary planet(called Vulcano) orbiting in the same path with Mercury and his calculations were as good as Relativity. When astronomers looked for such twin planet of Mercury, nothing was found and his theory was discarded.

Einstein added an imaginary time to his calculations and the periphelion of Mercury also coincided with his numbers, but, using the same review as the one made with Le Verrier, we have that neither the planet of Le Verrier and neither the dilating time of Eimnstein are physically existent. Relativity is discarded by its lack of providing the physical existence of time.

Also, Relativity fails miserably to accomplishh the same results with the rest of planets. So, the theory is a fake.

when the relation between electric and magnetic fields cannot be understood fully without relativity, what is there to question?

Without relativity? Where? How? Motion is the ruler, not such imaginary space-time. Besides, even Lorents is under scrutinity and errors have been found in is calculations. Check Lorentz wrong by DR. Lucy Haye.

http://autodynamics.org

There is no dogmatism here, just a lot of empirical evidence, and of mathematical consistency.

Excuse me, but there are other more accurate explanations to explain the observations than the fantasies of Relativity.

It seems that when our fundamental intuitions about space and time are questioned,

Of course, in science you must show the evidence of the physical existence of time, otherwise your words are nbo more than ideas, fantasies, imaginations, philosophy, anything but science.

some people get insecure (ups, this is ad hominum…).

On the contrary, I am very confident that time doesn’t exist physically, and I read that lots of scientists doubt of its existence. The insecurity is not in others but some -small group of scientists- who don’t want to recognize that they are plain wrong.

My opinion on that: relativity has no influence on our normal life assumptions. Nobody will notice It is only in the higher ‘artefacts’ of technology that it has influence on us.

GdB

Relativity has no influence at all in the universe, the good for nothing theory is just a good entertainment for mathematicians, like playing chess.

Some people believe that great chess players can be excellent strategists of war, but reality is that such game cannot be compared to what wars are in reality. Otherwise the great chess players should be called to win wars.

The same happen with Relativity, it is a fiction game where troops of seconds are tortured when objects attack going fast, but such is just a scientific game. Nothing realistic comes from such imaginations.

I’ll hope the documentary about the farse of Relativity to come soon, so people will have the opportunity of being informed of the new approach of science and people will have the right to choose which one of the opposite scientific tendencies to be trusted.