Breaking the Universe's Speed Limit

Pentcho Valev

Einstein refuted in a single sentence:

University of Texas: "Thus, the moving observer sees a wave possessing the same wavelength (...) but a different frequency (...) to that seen by the stationary observer. This phenomenon is known as the Doppler effect."

For the moving observer the formula:

(frequency) = (speed of the light wave)/(wavelength)

is valid, and since "the moving observer sees a wave possessing the same wavelength", the shift in frequency can only be due to a shift in the speed of the light wave relative to the observer. That is, as the observer starts moving towards the light source with (small) speed v, the frequency shifts from f=c/L to f'=(c+v)/L (L is the wavelength), which obviously implies that the speed of the light relative to the observer shifts from c to c'=c+v, in violation of special relativity.

Pentcho Valev

Special Relativity Is Obviously False

Paul Fendley: "Now let's see what this does to the frequency of the light. We know that even without special relativity, observers moving at different velocities measure different frequencies. (...) This is called the Doppler shift, and for small relative velocity v it is easy to show that the frequency shifts from f to f(1+v/c) (it goes up heading toward you, down away from you). There are relativistic corrections, but these are negligible here."

That is, if the frequency measured by a stationary observer is f=c/L (L is the wavelength), the frequency measured by an observer moving towards the light source with speed v is:

f' = f(1+v/c) = (c/L)(1+v/c) = (c+v)/L = c'/L

where c'=c+v is the speed of the light waves relative to the moving observer. Clearly special relativity is false.

Note that the fatal formula c'=c+v is derived from f'=f(1+v/c), a formula that can be found in any textbook (Fendley's text is neither unique nor indispensable). If v is small, the relativistic corrections are negligible and both c'=c+v and f'=f(1+v/c) are virtually exact formulas no matter whether the relativistic or non-relativistic Doppler effect is considered. (If v is great, no profit for special relativity - it can be shown that the relativistic corrections make c', the speed of the light waves relative to the moving observer, even greater than c+v.)

Pentcho Valev

Special Relativity Is Obviously False II

The observer starts moving away from the light source with speed Vo, and accordingly the speed of the light waves relative to him shifts from c to c'=c-Vo, in violation of special relativity.

As a result, " in a time t the number of waves which reach the observer are those in a distance (c-Vo)t, so the number of waves observed is (c-Vo)t/lambda, giving an observed frequency f'=f(1-Vo/c) ":

Tony Harker, University College London: "The Doppler Effect: Moving sources and receivers. The phenomena which occur when a source of sound is in motion are well known. The example which is usually cited is the change in pitch of the engine of a moving vehicle as it approaches. In our treatment we shall not specify the type of wave motion involved, and our results will be applicable to sound or to light. (...) Now suppose that the observer is moving with a velocity Vo away from the source. (....) If the observer moves with a speed Vo away from the source (...), then in a time t the number of waves which reach the observer are those in a distance (c-Vo)t, so the number of waves observed is (c-Vo)t/lambda, giving an observed frequency f'=f(1-Vo/c) when the observer is moving away from the source at a speed Vo."

In other words, the frequency shift from f to f'=f(1-Vo/c) is caused by a shift in the speed of the light waves relative to the observer, from c to c'=c-Vo. Special relativity is OBVIOUSLY false, which explains the behaviour of many Einsteinians nowadays:

Ordinary Einsteinians leave the sinking ship in panic.

Einsteiniana's high priests leave the sinking ship in a well-organized way.

Pentcho Valev

The Most Crucial Question in Relativity

A light source emits a series of pulses the distance between which is d (e.g. d=300000km).

A stationary observer/receiver measures the frequency of the pulses to be f=c/d.

An observer/receiver moving with speed v towards the light source measures the frequency of the pulses to be f'=(c+v)/d.

The most crucial question:

Why does the frequency shift from f=c/d to f'=(c+v)/d ?

Answer 1 (fatal for relativity): Because the speed of the pulses relative to the observer/receiver shifts from c to c'=c+v.

Answer 2 (saving relativity): Because...

I know of no reasonable statement that could become Answer 2.

Pentcho Valev

Amrit Sorli

speed of light is variable and depend on energy density of quntum vacuum.

lionel john

It is a never ending subject for discussion. The evolutions as well as the destiny of the universe is discussed so often among the scientist and researchers and still do not have a proper explanation for that. Keep sharing more about this. remodeling contractors Los Angeles

Georgina Woodward

Seen light and the EM radiation source of the seen light are different phenomena. What is seen will be called light. The source will be called EM radiation (EMr).The period of the EMr is invariant under translation and unaffected by the way in which the product of EMr processing by an observer is seen to be (produced from EMr scattered to the observer from source phenomenon). The period of the EMr is independent of observation. EMr period is not equivalent to the seen light frequency. Seen light frequency does depend on the rate of receipt by the observer. So it is not independent. On the constant speed of seen light: the received EMr can be considered a signal. Information can be obtained from it. That information depends upon the particular 'frequencies' (periods) and intensities of EMr emitted, at that particular time (uni-temporal Now). Faster receipt gives faster acquisition of temporal information (pertaining to time of emission) and the converse for slower receipt. So the perceived passage time produced from the input signal varies with rate of input. Making the seen present time 'flexible'.

Georgina Woodward

To be clearer; Making the apparent passage of time, obtained from the sequence of observed presents, flexible.

Georgina Woodward

This provides the two kinds of time needed by physics. Sequential foundational passage of time; the sequence of configurations of the existing universe. Always a singular configuration, so it is the same and only time everywhere. This prevents Grandfather type paradox and is the kind of non relativistic time physics needs for the happening of (rather than observing/sensing) of physics. Foundational passage of time is not a geometric dimension. As future and former configurations are not existing but can be imagined and form part of models. The second kind of time, from the processing of EM radiation (or other sensory information) is within the spacetime of the products. It allows non simultaneity of seen or heard events and relativity without paradox. It is a dimension of the product, if an amalgamation from signals of different 'existing universe configuration' origin. These kinds of time are not contradictory as they pertain to different phenomena.

Georgina Woodward

Seen light and the EM radiation source of the seen light are different phenomena, so require differentiating into different categories. What is seen will be called light. The source will be called EM radiation (EMr). Only the seen light considered in Einstein's light clock argument. The EMr, travelling between the mirrors is omitted. There is therefore a categorization error with the argument. As the seen light is seen it has to be a product of processing of received EMr that has travelled to the observer location, and not be the EMr itself travelling between the mirrors.

Georgina Woodward

As the observer reference frame contains what is seen it must be spacetime generated by the observer using received EMr input, not spacetime external to the observer. Whereas the EMr travelling between the mirrors is external to the observer, in a different space from that spacetime generated by the observer.

Georgina Woodward

Pythagorean mathematics can be used to compare the seen straight line paths of the light, seen moving relative to the observer and stationary relative to the observer. Stationary could be either both clock and observer deemed not moving or both co-moving. The EMr travelling between the mirrors is not seen. What is seen is only an 'appearance'. The EMr travelling between the mirrors is not taking a direct straight line between mirrors but as it is a wave phenomenon it is taking the wave path. (This can be likened to the difference between a spring objects length and the distance along the undulations or coils. While length of the object varies with extension the distance along the wire stays the same.) As the EMr has periodic motion it is invariant under translation. This is important, as the same singular foundational physics must be happening external to all of the observers.

Georgina Woodward

That should say: Pythagorean mathematics can be used to compare the seen straight line paths of the light, with the clock seen moving relative to the observer and stationary relative to the observer.

Georgina Woodward

I wrote " As the EMr has periodic motion it is invariant under translation." I should have specified that it is the period, or time taken per wavelength, that is invariant.

The actual path taken by the unseen EMr is the same length whether the path is considered extended or contracted

Georgina Woodward

The EMr travelling between the mirrors is external to the observer, in a different space from that spacetime generated by the observer. It is unaffected by what the observer sees or thinks. Two observer could be observing the clock, one stationary and done co-moving, Each observer receives their own subset of EMr emanating from the pulse of EMr, and using the sensory signals they generate from that produce their own sensory product in its own generated 'apparent'space. As the input is different for each the products are different. They are not the same spacetime as each other or the same space as that external to the observers.

Georgina Woodward

Independent of observation, the start location (of the particular motion under consideration) is always the same and end location always the same in foundational space external to the observers. The starting configurations of the existing universe are always the same. The ending configurations are always the same. So there is no difference in foundational passage of time (the changing of the singular existing universe's configuration). What is changing is the distance between clock and observer when one is deemed stationary relative to the other deemed moving. So the EMr has further to travel to reach the observer as they separate. Taking longer to arrive it will be older when it does arrive, so the clock will seem slow compared to the products of the observer when both observer and clock are deemed stationary, or co moving.

Georgina Woodward

For a co-moving observer only the vertical motion of the pulse is considered (by him/her/it) but in foundational reality the horizontal translation is also happening -so start and end locations of the motion under consideration are the same, whether co moving or stationary as clock moves. Same for regular throwing and catching of a ball while on a train. The thrower only considers the vertical motion while in foundational reality horizontal motion is also happening. The up, down, up of the ball is one large wavelength which in foundational reality takes the same time (starting in the same configurations of the universe and ending in the same configurations of the universe, whether just the vertical motion is considered or both vertical and horizontal. Apparent time differences come into play when receipt of sensory inputs is considered.

Georgina Woodward

The effective reference frame in perceptual judgments of motion direction. Mehmet N. Agaoglu, Michael H. Herzog, HalukГ-Дџmen, Vision research,Volume 107, February 2015, Pages 101-112, Elsevier

Study investigating eye, head and object movement affect the perceived motion of the seen object or relative motion of objects.

This provides evidence that the manner in which the sensory information is acquired also having an effect on what is perceived by a human observer. I.E. the importance of the processing of sensory input, together with information about its acquisition, (such as retina and head motion), not just receipt of signals uniformly treated to form seen and perceived product.

Georgina Woodward

Perhaps I can word that more clearly. The human observer's self generated reference frame, by which motion of an object and relative motions are estimated, is produced not just using the received EMr input but is also influenced by information available from the body. Such as retina and head positions and their motion during receipt of the EMr input.

Georgina Woodward

That the seen spacetime, and reference frame of the observer, those likenesses of things appearing as simultaneously present, is generated by the observer from sensory/sensor inputs and is not the material external world is important for physics. In "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' Einstein, 1905, two train measurements are described. One is of a material train and the other uses a seen train passing seen background. The measurements are treated as being equivalent. They are not. One measures the material object itself in space external to the observer. The other the seen appearance in the observer generated spacetime. This is a categorization error, category differentiation error, as there hasn't been differentiation of the different categories involved. Origin of the paradoxes of relativity and incompatibility with quantum physics.

Georgina Woodward

Atomic clocks function in a different way to the light clock in the thought experiment. Some info.on atomic clocks, Atomic Clocks A literature study by Cathelijne Glaser 2015, pdf

They are prone to many different kinds of noise and do not travel well. It isn't a simple periodic motion being measured out but sampling the behaviour of a population of atoms or ions.

I don't think that atomic clock timekeeping when travelling verifies the Pythagorean argument used with the light clock thought experiment.

Georgina Woodward

As the diagonal seen light paths of the light clock are seen, they must be the product of processing received EMr by the observer (not the EMr travelling between the mirrors with wave motion ).It is not comparing same categories of phenomenon when trying to replicate the calculated slowing of time shown by the light clock argument by using a beable (independent of observation) phenomenon i.e. the behaviour of the population of atoms or ions whose frequency is used in the atomic clock timekeeping.

The calculation being Pythagorean mathematics on the seen diagonal light paths. This looks like another category differentiation error, as the seen (light clock) phenomenon and the independently happening (in the atomic clock) phenomena have been treated as if comparable.

Georgina Woodward

To be more precise: the product of measurement of the behaviour of a collection of beable particles is being compared against the calculation on the seen manifestation of a light beam. A manifestation that has to have been generated by the observer from received EMr. These are categorically different not just variants of the same type of phenomenon.

Georgina Woodward

Re. Hafele-Keating experiment: the atomic clocks were compared on the ground after the experiment and had differences in shown time. That indicates that their timekeeping has been affected. It doesn't confirm Special Relativity is the cause. A co moving observer of the light clock would have to see time passing just the same as a stationary observer of the stationary clock. So it isn't timekeeping of the clock itself that is altered but how it is being seen when a stationary observer views the moving clock. The EMr traveling between the mirrors (rather than the seen manifestation) ought to be invariant with translation, as it is translation of periodic motion. Also the EMr passing between the mirrors would be the source of EMr used in generation of observations of a still clock observer and a co moving who must see the same rate of tick (according to special Relativity).

Georgina Woodward

Back on the ground; Some of the time difference of the atomic clocks is attributable to the difference in exposure to gravity (I agree that that is a plausible environmental effect on the system). The rest was attributed to Special Relativity. Even though the numbers seem close to the predictions it doesn't support the background theory. The prediction ought to be that difference could be observed by a stationary observer but back on the ground there has been no change in timekeeping due to Special Relativity during the flight that has altered the readout of the clock itself. The light clock argument is about what is seen by different observers not about change to the beable clock itself.

Georgina Woodward

Note. Difference in exposure to gravity is a plausible environmental effect on the system. I am not saying difference in regions of spacetime exposed to is causing the effect. My stance being that spacetime is a product of observation and not the foundational, observer independent, space or time where the physics of beables is happening.

Georgina Woodward

Re. my statement - The light clock argument is about what is seen by different observers not about change to the beable clock itself.

In the light clock argument only the seen is considered and what is actually happening inside the clock is omitted. (See earlier posts for why that is so).

The lack of category differentiation between seen manifestation and existing object introduced in 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' Einstein, seems to be carried forward to the experiments to try to provide evidence in favour of Special relativity. Change to a material object being presented as giving evidence for what should be only an observed change due to the observers particular reference frame. that is the observers view, i.e. what the observer has generated from the received signals.

Georgina Woodward

About the light clock thought experiment: Not treating the EMr travelling between the mirrors in the material object clock as a separate category for consideration from what the observers see in their own reference frames (that omission), probably also stems from the original category differentiation error in "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies", Einstein 1905. In which there is no category differentiation between the given methods for train length comparison. Now it can be said, one measurement is of a beable material object, the train itself, (an object not dependent on observation) in space (not dependent on observation), and the other the measurement obtained from observing the seen, observer generated, manifestation of a train in observer generated, seen, spacetime.

Georgina Woodward

Hoping that I have given a clear explanation of the categorization errors and their effects. I would be nice to know what people think as I have invested considerable time in thinking about and setting out the arguments. Is there any confusion or disagreement over what I have written? Does anyone think it was well done/ worthwhile?

« Previous Page Next Page »