The Stupidity of Einstein, Chapter Twenty-Five

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "Wizard-Of-Oz" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:***@217.119.49.38...


|As you were told, the clocks in the GPS satellite are constructed to tick
|sower other atomic clocks

What a surprise! Clocks are constructed to indicate, what a man want.
Yes, they are, and that's why they indicate t'=t, like they always did,
and they will still, ignoring idiots relativists screaming "NO!!!!!!".

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Mon, 30 Dec 2013 20:57:46 +0000 (UTC), "Wizard-Of-Oz"

Once again Henry advertises his own stupidity. What a stupid little
cunt he is

We have a broad beam of coherent monochromatic light and two
diffraction gratings lying normally to the beam. One grating is at
rest with the source, the other is moving towards it at speed v.
S-------------------------------------|
| <v
It is blatantly obvious that the existence of the gratings does not
and cannot affect the light beam.

But can affect what is measured. Like different observers can measure
different speeds for the same car without the car changing its motion.
The gratings measure different wavelengths for the light

It is also blatantly obvious that
the spacing of the lines on the gratings it not affected by the light
beam, no matter how they move in its direction.

But the spacing and angle can be different for the two gratings can be
different when measured by the other grating due to length contraction

It is also blatantly obvious that the sole factor responsible for
different diffraction of the beam by the two gratings is their rate of
interception of the waves in the beam.

Rate of interception (frequency) has NOTHING (*) to do with what a
gratin shows as it is SOLELY dependent on wavelength

The wavelength of light in the beam is not affected by the moveent of the
gratings. How the fucking hell could it be?

(*) other than wavelength times frequency gives speed of light, so there
is a relationship between wavelength and frequency in that sense

Because the wave arrival frequency is dependent on the arrival speed of the
light, in contradicttion of Einstein's P2, the silly fool had to concoct the
idea that the wavelength also changed so that f x L = c in the frame of hte
moving grating. However he couldn't do that for other reasons so he simply
made out that TIME was frame dependent and multiplied both quantities by gamma
so their product would always equal c.

Thus, the stationary grating will receive waves at a rate of c/L, and
the moving grating at the rate of (c+v)/L, where L is the absolute
wavelength, measured in the source frame.

No

All known experiments support that conclusion.

No .. they refute it .. the frequency varies but not by that formula.
And they refute your claims about the wavelength being absolute

All lengths are absolute...

__

Henry Wilson DSc.

[Tom Roberts]

[Henry's gedanken]
But the spacing and angle can be different for the two gratings can be
different when measured by the other grating due to length contraction

Actually, the important effect is not "length contraction", which is
second-order in v/c. The important effect is the change in wavelength due to the
relativity of simultaneity, which is first-order in v/c. One measures the
wavelength of a monochromatic light ray by observing its wavecrests
SIMULTANEOUSLY in one's inertial frame -- that is the wavelength to which the
grating responds.


Tom Roberts

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.
On Mon, 30 Dec 2013 20:57:46 +0000 (UTC), "Wizard-Of-Oz"

Rate of interception (frequency) has NOTHING (*) to do with what a
gratin shows as it is SOLELY dependent on wavelength

The wavelength of light in the beam is not affected by the moveent of
the gratings. How the fucking hell could it be?

It is affected by relative motion of the grating and the source.

Are you completely mad?
Yes....we know that..

It's obvious.. here's a diagram for you showing a pair of peaks
(wavelength being distance between the peaks peaks) .. or pulses if you
prefer
Source at rest relative to the grating
S.................G
p.................G - 1st peak
S..p..............G
p.....p...........G - 2nd peak
S..p.....p........G
S.....p.....p.....G
S........p.....p..G
S...........p.....p
S..............p..G..p
S.................p.....p
Source moving toward the grating
S.................G
.p................G - 1st peak
..S.p.............G
...p...p..........G - 2nd peak
....S.p...p.......G
.....S...p...p....G
......S.....p...p.G
.......S.......p..Gp
........S.........p...p
The wavelength is shorter. the frequency higher. same arrival speed

Nothing happens to the beam, no matter what any grating does. The wave arrival
frequencey is higher when the grating moves towards the source. Nothing else
changes. How the fucking hell could it?

Post by Henry Wilson DSc.

(*) other than wavelength times frequency gives speed of light, so
there is a relationship between wavelength and frequency in that sense

Because the wave arrival frequency is dependent on the arrival speed
of the light,

Which is c.

It is obviously not fucking c.


__

Henry Wilson DSc.