Fatal Question in Modern Physics

[Pentcho Valev]

"When the observer is moving, as in Animation 2, the sound waves emitted from the source are undisturbed. The wavelength does not change as observed from the moving observer." https://www.compadre.org/osp/EJSS/3851/model5/85.htm

Unchanged wavelength implies that the speed of the waves relative to the observer varies with the speed of the observer.

Consider an analogous situation: the observer is moving towards a light source. Are the waves undisturbed again? Again, the wavelength does not change as observed from the moving observer? Or the motion of the observer miraculously disturbs the waves, changes the wavelength, and so guarantees that the speed of light relative to the observer gloriously remains constant?

 

[Classical Motion]

When the observer moves, it changes the interaction rate. Which changes the length and duration measurement.

But the true length and duration did not change, just the measurement of it did.

 

[marcin]

Wavelength changes because you hit subsequent wave crests more often when you approach the source, so the distance between them is shorter for you. When you move away from the source, you run away from subsequent crests, so they hit you less often, so the distance between them is longer for you.

Wavelength λ and wave period T change in your reference frame by the same factor z+1, so c=λ/T remains constant.

λ = (z+1)λ₀
T = (z+1)T₀
λ/T = λ₀/T₀ = c

Wave period extension or cotraction is also your time dilation.

When the observer moves, it changes the interaction rate. Which changes the length and duration measurement.

You can say that.

But the true length and duration did not change, just the measurement of it did.

You can say that only if you have a privileged reference frame, where the true length and duration do not change. There is such a frame and it's called CMB reference frame, but calling the length and duration true in this frame in contrast to the false length and duration in other frames in plain wrong. There is no reference frame where these parameters are false.

@Classical Motion try to understand what I wrote this time before giving me your next wall of text. I also remind you of your beautiful self criticism:

I do not use that map to discern this territory. Classical physics was killed before it was completed. So I went back and completed it for myself. I don't see where this cosmos uses math or information. So I don't either. This cosmos is strictly mechanical. Probability, randomness and chaos does not exist. And space is empty. Cubed and squared.

Our intellect keeps us blind.

I am not a scientist or an expert. And have no authority.

 

[Classical Motion]

One does not need the CMBR for anything. To measure true length and duration, all one needs to do is to be still. Measure in a state of zero velocity. Zero displacement.

I only offer an alternative view. For all this motion makes sense to me without spacetime. Or expansion.

Redshift makes sense to me. For it’s a duty cycle shift, not a wave shift.

I thought I was responding to another post, not yours.

Pardon me for disturbing you. I didn’t see your post.

 

[marcin]

To measure true length and duration, all one needs to do is to be still.

To be still you must be still with respect to something. Being still with respect to yourself means nothing.

I only offer an alternative view. For all this motion makes sense to me without spacetime. Or expansion.

Motion makes no sense without time and distance traveled in this time, so you need spacetime to have a motion.

Redshift makes sense to me. For it’s a duty cycle shift, not a wave shift.

You've repeated this statement about your duty cycle hundreds if not thousands of times on this forum. What is the precise definition of your duty cycle?

 

[Classical Motion]

Blinking. There and not there.

Not waving back and forth. Not continuous.

The on time is constant. Only the length and duration of the off time shifts, with emitter motion.

And all of this is going on in a flux. Hidden from all.

 

[marcin]

If that's precise definition then I'm the next pope.

Blinking. There and not there.

Either it's teleportation, or quantum physics with the probablity distribution and the collapse of the wave function, which forces the particle to appear at the specific point in spacetime.

The on time is constant. Only the length and duration of the off time shifts, with emitter motion.

And all of this is going on in a flux. Hidden from all.

So your ON is when the particle (since you don't believe in waves) is not hidden, and OFF is when it's hidden, yes?

What does it mean for a particle to be hidden? What kind of state is that? The best analogy known to me is the wave function between measurements and its subsequent collapses in quantum physics. Wave function is often considered not real in the colloquial sense, because mathematically it also has its imaginary part.

 

[Classical Motion]

marcin my man you have completely miss understood every word I wrote. May I ask what kind of background you have, so that I might relate to you?

Let’s get on the same page.

If you will be patient, I will clear it up for you. You won’t agree, but you will see what I mean.

 

[marcin]

marcin my man you have completely miss understood every word I wrote. May I ask what kind of background you have, so that I might relate to you?

Let’s get on the same page.

If you will be patient, I will clear it up for you. You won’t agree, but you will see what I mean.

I've been a prostitute since I was 18. Please, clear it up for me once again using your duty cycle shift, which means nothing to me and probably nothing in general, if you can't explain it in terms of classical or quantum physics.

 

[Classical Motion]

If I cleared it up, you would just catch it again.

 

[marcin]

And all of this is going on in a flux. Hidden from all.

Where is this hidden flux?

 

[Classical Motion]

Is English your native language?

 

[Classical Motion]

The flux is not hidden. The flux is what you see and measure. The photons that makes the flux, is what is hidden.

 

[marcin]

Is English your native language?

My native language is Zulu. I don't need english as my native language to see the lack of basic logic, inconsistent and vague expressions, and self-contradiction.

And all of this is going on in a flux. Hidden from all.

and

The flux is not hidden. The flux is what you see and measure. The photons that makes the flux, is what is hidden.

Where are these hidden photons OR where are these photons when they are hidden? I'm almost sure, that you are not talking about the invisible spectrum of EM radiation. That's probably your last refuge anyway.