Light Speed refutes Special Relativity 2
Stan Byers
Hello Light Speed Investigators,
It appears that in building the Light Speed versus Special Relativity
article for the web, too many bells and whistles were added that clouded the
main argument.
The one and lonely single fact that has to be recognized to prove that light
speed is not constant to all observers is the "1003 second delay" as
discovered by Roemer circa 1676.
This fact establishes that light from Jupiter travels on all radials from
Jupiter at " c " in relation to Jupiter. Since Earth has a changing velocity
on a radial from Jupiter, there is a relative velocity between Earth and the
light train which is " not c " . If there exists a delay or advance in the
eclipse event timing,... it is not possible for the light speed in the
intervening space to be constant in relation to Earth.
Roemer, many other astronomers and Nasa have established that the eclipse
period of Io in relation to the Sun line to Jupiter is 152,915.9 seconds
(sec/cycle)or 1.77 days/cycle. The important point concerning this period is
the fact that it does not vary. If the Earth could linger at the near point
to Jupiter, it could be observed that Io's timing in crossing the Sun line
to Jupiter does not vary over the years, the frequency being approximately
206.4 cycles per Earth year. It would make a very accurate clock for Sun
dwellers.
When the Earth starts it's orbit and is leaving the near point,...if the
speed of light remained constant relative to the Earth the observed timing
of Io's period would not change,...regardless of the longitudinal speed of
the Earth relative to Jupiter. All succeeding eclipse events would remain in
timing synchronism with the events as observed at the near point. If this
were true there would have been no 1003 second accumulated delay for Roemer
to record.
If the mechanics of the phrase,...if the speed of light remained constant
relative to the Earth, the observed timing of Io's period would not
change,...is not completely clear,...the reader will not be able understand
the main argument of the Light Speed versus Special Relative paper.
A second concept which is also critical to understanding the argument is,...
you cannot separate the speed and timing of the eclipse event from the speed
of the light.
Roemer's 1003 second delay is the accumulated change in observed period due
to Earth's motion relative to Jupiter.
A change in observed period is a Doppler effect.
A Doppler effect results when an observer obtains a closing or retreating
speed relative to the source.
Therefore the change observed in the period of Io indicates that light speed
is not constant relative to observers.
Accuracy in measuring the eclipse timing and accuracy in the graphs
demonstrating the changes of the eclipse period timing are not critical nor
required to validate this argument.
The single fact that Roemer's 1003 second delay exists,...makes the second
postulate of Special Relative impossible.
In addition to Roemer's discovery there are two other examples of EM
radiation demonstrating that it's speed is constant only in relation to the
source,...and is not constant to all observers regardless of their line of
sight velocity relative to the source.
One example has been available on the web site of B. G. Wallace using 1969
radar data to establish c + v for the observers relative speed of light. The
information is available at
http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
I have not yet reviewed his example in detail, I believe it is based on the
analysis of radar measurements between Earth and Venus. I fully expect that
his work is another valid example of the failure of the Special Relativity
concept.
A second example is provided by data rates between spacecraft and Earth. The
fact that Doppler effects are utilized between Earth and spacecraft is
another sure indication that EM radiation maintains " c " in relation to the
source and not the observer. When the radio carrier frequency of a
spacecraft is known and a Doppler shift or a change in a Doppler shift of
the carrier and data is observed, how is it possible to assume that the
"free space speed" did not change in relation to the observer ?
The following link from IEEE provides a quote regarding a problem and repair
required due to improper recognition of the effects of relative EM speed.
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/archive/1547/6
QUOTE: ESA IMMEDIATELY CONVENED AN INQUIRY BOARD, with two NASA
observers. One of them was Richard Horttor, who was then JPL's
telecommunications system engineer for the Cassini project. He recalls, "We
worked our way out by being totally candid from top to bottom once we
detected the problem. There was no hesitancy or lack of resources. Nor was
there any 'nation-to-nation finger-pointing.' "
The board discovered that Alenia Spazio SpA, the Rome-based company that
built the radio link, had properly anticipated the need to make the receiver
sensitive over a wide enough range of frequencies to detect Huygens's
carrier signal even when Doppler shifted. But it had overlooked another
subtle consequence: Doppler shift would affect not just the frequency of the
carrier wave that the probe's vital observations would be transmitted on but
also the digitally encoded signal itself. In effect, the shift would push
the signal out of synch with the timing scheme used to recover data from the
phase-modulated carrier.
Because of Doppler shift, the frequency at which bits would be arriving
from Huygens would be significantly different from the nominal data rate of
8192 bits per second. As the radio wave from the lander was compressed by
Doppler shift, the data rate would increase as the length of each bit was
reduced. UNQUOTE
In the above quote concerning Nasa's Titan data test it is seen that the
carrier frequency and the digital data frequency displayed a Doppler effect.
If that same transmitter was parked on Jupiter's north pole you would see a
repeat of Roemer's data during Earth's orbital trip. In Io's case you have a
light train modulated by eclipse events, and in the radio case you have a
radio carrier modulated by digital data.
You cannot separate the speed and timing of the digital data bits from the
speed of the radio carrier.
The graphs of frequency and period of Io's eclipse events displays the
Doppler effect in direct proportion to the relative motion between the Earth
and Jupiter, therefore the light train speed relative to Earth changes at
the same rate. A detailed description of the Doppler effect is available on
the web at the URL
http://www.ed.mtu.edu/ED3100/fall04/klwarsin/TheDopplerEffectWhatCausesIt.html
http://www.ed.mtu.edu/ED3100/fall04/klwarsin/TheDopplerEffectWhatCausesIt.html
Cheers, Stan Byers
Web site atricle "Light Speed versus Special Relativity" at URL
http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/litespd_vs_sr.htm
http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11
Michael Varney
> Hello Light Speed Investigators,
Hello crackpot.
Bill Hobba
"Stan Byers" <sbye...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:v9OdnVkmr54...@comcast.com...
>
> Hello Light Speed Investigators,
>
> It appears that in building the Light Speed versus Special Relativity
> article for the web, too many bells and whistles were added that clouded
> the
> main argument.
Correct. The speed of light being constant has nothing to do with modern
treatments of relatiivty. See
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0110076,
and ancient, but I still think excellent post by Tom Roberts
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&selm=54jfst%24glp%40ssbunews.ih.lucent.com
and chapter 10 of
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/
under the heading of Relativity without c.
If the speed of light was ever found not to be constant in an inertial frame
then such may not affect SR in the slightest since it is a theory about
space-time geometry - not light.
Rest snipped
Bill
Hexenmeister
>
> It appears that in building the Light Speed versus Special Relativity
> article for the web, too many bells and whistles were added that clouded
> the
> main argument.
Of course.
> The one and lonely single fact that has to be recognized to prove that
> light
> speed is not constant to all observers is the "1003 second delay" as
> discovered by Roemer circa 1676.
It's more than that now.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Synchronize/Synchronize.htm
The stupidity of SR is Einstein's assumption 2AB/(t'A-tA) = c.
For units of c = 1,
1 - 1 = c.
Androcles.
ave...@verizon.net
by SPONERED LINKS?
Hexenmeister
<ave...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1138689328.2...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> How in the hell can you read an article when half of it is obliterated
> by SPONERED LINKS?
Use a different newsreader such as Outlook Express instead.
Androcles.
Sue...
If SR is about space-time geometry then it is disproprove
by the twins paradox as Langevin proposed.
I think you'll find the possibily of a space-time continuum
is only *suggested* in SR with a caveat about the imaginary
operator. It is in GR where the caveat is ignored in increasing
the number of sides of a polygon to form a circle.
Sue...
>
> Rest snipped
>
> Bill
Tom Roberts
> When the Earth starts it's orbit and is leaving the near point,...if the
> speed of light remained constant relative to the Earth the observed timing
> of Io's period would not change,...regardless of the longitudinal speed of
> the Earth relative to Jupiter. All succeeding eclipse events would remain in
> timing synchronism with the events as observed at the near point. If this
> were true there would have been no 1003 second accumulated delay for Roemer
> to record.
You are assuming light's speed is _infinite_. That is manifestly not so.
The earth's orbit is roughly 1000 light seconds in diameter, and the
accumulated delay comes from the fact that the light must traverse that
diameter.
IOW: this is not any sort of "time dilation", this is simply the fact
that it takes light roughly 1000 seconds longer to reach the earth when
earth is furthest from Jupiter than it takes when earth is closest to
Jupiter. This difference _IS_ what Roemer used to compute the speed of
light.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Hexenmeister
"Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:drofr4$i...@netnews.net.lucent.com...
> Stan Byers wrote:
>> When the Earth starts it's orbit and is leaving the near point,...if the
>> speed of light remained constant relative to the Earth the observed
>> timing
>> of Io's period would not change,...regardless of the longitudinal speed
>> of
>> the Earth relative to Jupiter. All succeeding eclipse events would remain
>> in
>> timing synchronism with the events as observed at the near point. If this
>> were true there would have been no 1003 second accumulated delay for
>> Roemer
>> to record.
>
> You are assuming light's speed is _infinite_.
Hey, shithead!
"For velocities greater than that of light our deliberations become
meaningless; we shall, however, find in what follows, that the velocity of
light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an infinitely great
velocity." -- Einstein.
> That is manifestly not so.
That's right, shithead. The basis of relativity is manifestly not so.
> The earth's orbit is roughly 1000 light seconds in diameter, and the
> accumulated delay comes from the fact that the light must traverse that
> diameter.
>
> IOW: this is not any sort of "time dilation", this is simply the fact that
> it takes light roughly 1000 seconds longer to reach the earth when earth
> is furthest from Jupiter than it takes when earth is closest to Jupiter.
> This difference _IS_ what Roemer used to compute the speed of light.
Right, so you've just proven Einstein was wrong, shithead.
"We have not defined a common ``time'' for A and B, for the latter cannot
be defined at all unless we establish by definition that the ``time''
required by light to travel from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to
travel from B to A. " -- Einstein.
Roberts responds:
TIME doesn't mean time. OBSERVATION doesn't mean observation.
DEFINITION doesn't mean definition. PROOF doesn't mean proof.
SHITHEAD doesn't mean shithead.
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
From: Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@lucent.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 17:57:18 GMT
Local: Sat, Sep 17 2005 6:57 pm
Subject: Re: Does the 'Curvature of Spacetime' cause gravity?
"Yes, tests of strong fields are few and far between, but there are some:
the binary pulsars, and observations of accretion disks near black holes"
"Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message news:OiWxf.694
"But, of course, my description was about physical observables, not
coordinate systems."
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
From: Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@lucent.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 17:13:12 GMT
Local: Sun, Nov 20 2005 5:13 pm
Subject: Re: Light Speed refutes Special Relativity, Translation
"Amateurs look at data, professionals look at errorbars.
That page completely ignores the many modern measurements, which VASTLY
smaller errorbars, that all show the constancy of the speed of light in many
different situations."
Baez crackpot index:
5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with
defective keyboards).
I have asked "Dr." Roberts for the right ascension and declination of this
mythical accretion disk near a black hole on several occasions, but he has
declined to provide the data.
"I am not an
astronomer" -- Roberts.
but a few minutes with google "black hole accretion disk"
will show you that there are indeed many such observations. --Roberts
"There is a
very large literature on this topic (see any astrophysics or astronomy
journal of the past decade), including textbooks and conference
proceedings galore (e.g. go to amazon.com and search for "black hole
accretion")" --Roberts.
Shithead Roberts gets his data from amazon.com and google.com
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Lucent/Roberts.htm
Androcles.
> Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Eric Gisse
Hexenmeister wrote:
[snip]
You are daft.
But please, keep being abusive. In fact, be more abusive - threaten his
life. The more abuse, the faster we can be rid of you.
Mike
Unfortunately, you should know that this is not true, the spacetime
geometry of SR depends on the speed of light constancy, since c is
included in the metric in a special way, i.e. after assuming that it is
constant in all inertial FoRs.
If c varies, it is not Einstein's SR, Minkowski spacetime geometry is
not valid any longer, but some other theory since Einstein's SR was
formulated explicitely based on the contancy of the speed of light in
all inertial reference frames. Maybe should be called Alternative
Relativity or Genuing Relativity but not Special Relativity.
By the way, if c is not constant in all inertial FoR. Minkowski
spacetime geometry is not valid any longer and since you DO NOT know
how the speed may vary, if it does indeed, you DO NOT know what kind of
spacetime geometry you are talking about ALTHOUGH you seem prety
relaxed to insist that SR is a theory about spacetime geometry.
Mike
>
> Rest snipped
>
> Bill
Tom Roberts
> Unfortunately, you should know that this is not true, the spacetime
> geometry of SR depends on the speed of light constancy, since c is
> included in the metric in a special way, i.e. after assuming that it is
> constant in all inertial FoRs.
That was true in Einstein's original derivation, but modern derivations
avoid this. It is true there is a confusion: we denote the constant in
Maxwell's equations as "c", and we denote the invariant speed in the
Lorentz transform as "c" -- this confusion is historical and no longer
implies they are really "the same thing"; there is, however,
considerable experimental evidence that these two usages of that symbol
have the same numerical value to incredible accuracy.
IOW: if it is ultimately discovered that the photon has a nonzero mass
(i.e. light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant speed of the
Lorentz transform), SR would be unaffected but both Maxwell's equations
and QED would be refuted (or rather, their domains of applicability
would be reduced).
> If c varies, it is not Einstein's SR, [...]
Sure it is. It's just that a different set of postulates are used to
derive the same set of theorems. The interpretations, of course, are
unchanged. Same theorems and same interpretations => same theory.
IOW: physics is not locked in a time warp at 1905.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>Mike wrote:
>> Unfortunately, you should know that this is not true, the spacetime
>> geometry of SR depends on the speed of light constancy, since c is
>> included in the metric in a special way, i.e. after assuming that it is
>> constant in all inertial FoRs.
>
>That was true in Einstein's original derivation, but modern derivations
>avoid this. It is true there is a confusion: we denote the constant in
>Maxwell's equations as "c", and we denote the invariant speed in the
>Lorentz transform as "c" -- this confusion is historical and no longer
>implies they are really "the same thing"; there is, however,
>considerable experimental evidence that these two usages of that symbol
>have the same numerical value to incredible accuracy.
>
then the speed of light appears to equal c".
Yes, I know I wrote it before. My apologies:-)
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Mike
Am I free to call the "same theory" then Robert's Relativity, or RR,
rather than Eisntein's SR and declare Einstein wrong? I mean if that
turns out to be the case.
It must be obvious that if this turns out to be the case, Einstein was
wrong. A variable c implies a much different world than suggested by SR
if one wants to look at the theory from a law-like perspective. But
even from the model-like perspective, the new theory would falsify
Einstein right in his postulates. .
I mean, is it correct to continue giving credit to someone if his
theory is falsified when it is known that the alternative theories
existed long ago or even before him. The major selling point of SR was
that c is constant in all inertial FoR. I understand some have equated
Relativity, in general, with SR but as you know this is not correct.
I get the feeling that SRians are sensing their time is up and struggle
to:
1. claim SR was not falsified by naming the new theory SR (really
stupid move)
2. assert that the new theory is Einstein's theory (which is not)
This is not equivalent to Newton followed by Einstein's extension. If c
is variable, Einstein is falsified whereas Newton was never falsified
but only limited in his applicability.
Mike
>
>
> Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Stan Byers
Thanks for the response. Tom, it is clear that you are misunderstanding the
argument.
When the Earth has no closing or retreating speed in relation to Jupiter the
normal period of Io's successive crossings of Jupiter's zenith Sun line will
be observed. The same period will also be observed by Sun dwellers.
Now when the Earth retreats from Jupiter the observed period is elongated as
shown by the charts. This is due to the change of period and frequency of
the Io events as is predicted for all radiation by the Doppler effect. At
this time in the scenario, Earthlings are classed as a moving observers of
the Io's events.
Now the second postulate of Special Relativity states that the speed of
light is constant for all observers, moving or stationary in relation to the
source. This is not reality.
Now quite logically "if" the speed of light were constant for a stationary
Earth observer and remained constant as the observer starts retreating, this
can only occur if the speed of light is infinite. It is also true that "if"
the speed of light remains constant for observers with changing motion in
relation to the source,...the frequency and periods and event time
synchronism transmitted by the light will also remain constant. Therefore
there would not be an accumulated delay of 1003 seconds.
Roemer's 1003 second delay and the curves presented on the URL
http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/IoAppro.gif
show that the speed of light is "not" infinite,...therefore the second
postulate of Special Relativity is impossible,...There is no other option.
The speed of light changes relative to the observer in direct proportion to
the observers longitudinal motion relative to the source.
Tom, I do hope the above content will help settle the issue in your mind.
However, I do not expect that all readers will understand my explanation of
Roemer's data. Tom if you cannot understand and agree with this above
argument and conclusion I respectfully suggest that you review and discuss
the Jupiter Io scenario with one of your "non" relativistic colleagues.
If you decide the 1003 seconds of Roemer's delay is real, then basic
arithmetic shows that you have to accept that Special Relativity is false.
There can only be one correct answer.
Even when relativistic science dilates time, warps space and shrinks
rulers,...Roemer's 1003 second delay still exists. Out damn spot!
The JPL Nasa Data problem provided at the web
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/archive/1547/6
presents a second example that the speed of radiation does not remain
constant relative to all observers.
Cheers, Stan Byers
"Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:drofr4$i...@netnews.net.lucent.com...
Sam Wormley
> Hello Tom and Group,
>
> Thanks for the response. Tom, it is clear that you are misunderstanding the
> argument.
>
Stan, I think you are missing the basic geometry of Roemer's observation.
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Roemer.html
Hexenmeister
> Mike wrote:
>> Unfortunately, you should know that this is not true, the spacetime
>> geometry of SR depends on the speed of light constancy, since c is
>> included in the metric in a special way, i.e. after assuming that it is
>> constant in all inertial FoRs.
>
> That was true in Einstein's original derivation, but modern derivations
> avoid this. It is true there is a confusion: we denote the constant in
> Maxwell's equations as "c", and we denote the invariant speed in the
> Lorentz transform as "c" -- this confusion is historical and no longer
> implies they are really "the same thing"; there is, however, considerable
> experimental evidence that these two usages of that symbol have the same
> numerical value to incredible accuracy.
>
>> If c varies, it is not Einstein's SR, [...]
>
IOW: Roberts is a totally deranged self-contradictory psychotic shithead.
Androcles.
Hexenmeister
> Hello Tom and Group,
>
> Thanks for the response. Tom, it is clear that you are misunderstanding
> the argument.
Roberts is a totally deranged shithead. <shrug>
>
> When the Earth has no closing or retreating speed in relation to Jupiter
> the normal period of Io's successive crossings of Jupiter's zenith Sun
> line will be observed. The same period will also be observed by Sun
> dwellers.
> Now when the Earth retreats from Jupiter the observed period is elongated
> as shown by the charts. This is due to the change of period and frequency
> of the Io events as is predicted for all radiation by the Doppler effect.
> At this time in the scenario, Earthlings are classed as a moving observers
> of the Io's events.
Forget about Io for a moment. Ask Cassini the time.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Synchronize/Synchronize.htm
>
> Now the second postulate of Special Relativity states that the speed of
> light is constant for all observers, moving or stationary in relation to
> the source. This is not reality.
>
> Now quite logically
Logically? You want Roberts to think logically?
Asking the Pope if there is a God has a better probability of success.
"if" the speed of light were constant for a stationary
> Earth observer and remained constant as the observer starts retreating,
> this can only occur if the speed of light is infinite.
According to the Holy Mosque of Relativity, First Book of Einstein, Chapter
4, Verse 4,
Reference http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
"For velocities greater than that of light our deliberations become
meaningless; we shall, however, find in what follows, that the velocity of
light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an infinitely great
velocity." -- Praise be to the Lord Einstein.
Einstein said it, Roberts believes it, that settles it. Roberts isn't the
first and he won't be the last bigot on Earth, get used to it. Wht makes you
think logic will have any effect on a bigot?
> It is also true that "if" the speed of light remains constant for
> observers with changing motion in relation to the source,...the frequency
> and periods and event time synchronism transmitted by the light will also
> remain constant.
In hypothetical sentences introduced by 'if' and referring to
past time, where conditions are to be deemed 'unfulfilled',
the verb will regularly be found in the pluperfect subjunctive,
in both protasis and apodosis.
-- Donet, "Principles of Elementary Latin Syntax"
> Therefore there would not be an accumulated delay of 1003 seconds.
>
> Roemer's 1003 second delay and the curves presented on the URL
> http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/IoAppro.gif
> show that the speed of light is "not" infinite,...therefore the second
> postulate of Special Relativity is impossible,...There is no other option.
>
> The speed of light changes relative to the observer in direct proportion
> to the observers longitudinal motion relative to the source.
>
> Tom, I do hope the above content will help settle the issue in your mind.
> However, I do not expect that all readers will understand my explanation
> of Roemer's data. Tom if you cannot understand and agree with this above
> argument and conclusion I respectfully suggest that you review and discuss
> the Jupiter Io scenario with one of your "non" relativistic colleagues.
>
> If you decide the 1003 seconds of Roemer's delay is real, then basic
> arithmetic shows that you have to accept that Special Relativity is false.
> There can only be one correct answer.
>
> Even when relativistic science dilates time, warps space and shrinks
> rulers,...Roemer's 1003 second delay still exists. Out damn spot!
>
> The JPL Nasa Data problem provided at the web
> http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/archive/1547/6
> presents a second example that the speed of radiation does not remain
> constant relative to all observers.
Stop being Mr. Nice Guy and report Roberts's bigotry to Lucent Technologies.
I have. Fraud should be exposed and prosecuted, or Lucent will be soon be
facing the same exposure as Alenia Spazio SpA.
Androcles.
Mike
"Roberts is self-contradictory" suffices and tells it all.
The word "psychotic" is reserved for Drooten van der Moortal.
The one who is deranged is you.
Take it easy and try to find strong arguments against the idiots if you
want to succeed. You fall into the trap of arguing and making strong ad
hominen attacks. You are alone and they are many. You always lose, not
because you are wrong but because they are the majority.
Einstein's Relativity is the easiest thing to rebut but any rebutal
makes sense only if there is an agreement from the other side on what
constitutes a rebutal. As you see, in the past they claimed fearcly c
is inavriant. Now, when they have strong experimental evidence c is
source dependent, they claim they do not need the invariance and SR is
a theory about the geometry of spacetime. You cannot deal with this
kind of people in normal ways. These people are conspiring to maintain
a certain status quo in physics.
Mike
>
> Androcles.
Bill Hobba
>
> Thanks for the response. Tom, it is clear that you are misunderstanding
> the argument.
>
> When the Earth has no closing or retreating speed in relation to Jupiter
> the normal period of Io's successive crossings of Jupiter's zenith Sun
> line will be observed. The same period will also be observed by Sun
> dwellers.
> Now when the Earth retreats from Jupiter the observed period is elongated
> as shown by the charts. This is due to the change of period and frequency
> of the Io events as is predicted for all radiation by the Doppler effect.
> At this time in the scenario, Earthlings are classed as a moving observers
> of the Io's events.
>
> Now the second postulate of Special Relativity states that the speed of
> light is constant for all observers, moving or stationary in relation to
> the source. This is not reality.
>
> Now quite logically "if" the speed of light were constant for a stationary
> Earth observer and remained constant as the observer starts retreating,
> this can only occur if the speed of light is infinite.
Mind elaborating on that? I fail to see its logic.
Bill
Mahmoud In My Dinner Jacket
The other day, I myself saw the speed of light go up to relativity and
give it the Alex Harvey!
Gregory L. Hansen
Do you mean a variable speed of light in vacuum, or a variable invariant
speed?
--
"The hardest conviction to get into the mind of the beginner is that the
education he is receiving in college is not a medical course but a life
course for which the work of a few years under teachers is but a
preparation." -- Sir William Osler
Stan Byers
Thanks for the response Bill, clarifying issues in question may aid many
readers.
Quotes follow://////////////////////
Stan >> Now quite logically "if" the speed of light were constant for a
stationary
>> Earth observer and "remained constant" as the observer starts retreating,
>> this can only occur if the speed of light is infinite.
>
Bill> Mind elaborating on that? I fail to see its logic.
Unquote //////////////////////
When the Earth is at rest relative to Jupiter observers will see a period
for Io's orbit that is the same for all observers that are stationary
relative to Jupiter. When the Earth starts retreating from Jupiter,..."if"
the light speed stayed the same relative to the observer all events would
appear that the observer had not retreated. All Io events would remain in
exact timing synchronism with the events observed when the Earth was
stationary in relation to Jupiter.
We all know that the ball goes past the pitcher before it gets to third
base. Yet SR says that the ball will get to third base and the pitcher at
the same time. The ball would have to have magic infinite velocity between
the pitcher's mound and third base.
I am sure there are others on this thread that can provide a scenario that
gives a better explanation, especially for countries that do not play
baseball. ;~)
Without an understanding of this concept readers will not be able to clearly
see the argument between Roemer's 1003 second delay in Io's synchronism and
SR's second postulate.
Cheers, Stan Byers
"Bill Hobba" <rub...@junk.com> wrote in message
news:Bf1Ef.232999$V7.5...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
ste...@nomail.com
> Quotes follow://////////////////////
> Unquote //////////////////////
I do not know what sort of baseball you are playing, but a ball
that goes to third base does not go past the pitcher. That would require
the ball to go in two different directions. A ball that reaches third base
will not go past the pitcher, and vice versa. The pitcher is closer to home
than third base is to home, so if two balls leave home plate at
the same time, travelling at the same speed, and one is headed
towards the pitcher, and the other towards third base, then
the ball heading towards the pitcher will reach the pitcher
before the ball heading towards third base reaches third base.
The same is true of light. I have no idea why you think SR
would predict that light must travel unequal distances in the
same amount of time.
> Without an understanding of this concept readers will not be able to clearly
> see the argument between Roemer's 1003 second delay in Io's synchronism and
> SR's second postulate.
You really do not seem to understand basic physics, let alone
relativity.
Stephen
Stan Byers
Thanks for the correction,...but don't they have curve balls?
Or the computer could have made a typo.
Or digitally,...2nd base is the third bag.
But yes, this could be my second mistrake.
My first mistrake occurrred once upon a time when I thought
I was rong,....but as usual,...I was write. ;~)
Cheers, Stan Byers
For "Light Speed versus Special Relativity" see URL
http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/litespd_vs_sr.htm
<ste...@nomail.com> wrote in message news:drr220$cf3$1...@news.msu.edu...
snip
ste...@nomail.com
> Thanks for the correction,...but don't they have curve balls?
> Or the computer could have made a typo.
> Or digitally,...2nd base is the third bag.
That still makes no sense.
If you honestly think that SR predicts that
light must cover unequal distances in the
same amount of time then you simply have
no understanding of SR.
> But yes, this could be my second mistrake.
At least.
Stephen
Russell
Stan Byers wrote:
> Hello Tom and Group,
>
> Thanks for the response. Tom, it is clear that you are misunderstanding the
> argument.
>
> When the Earth has no closing or retreating speed in relation to Jupiter the
> normal period of Io's successive crossings of Jupiter's zenith Sun line will
> be observed. The same period will also be observed by Sun dwellers.
I'm guessing this is the basis of your strange idea that Earth
dwellers and Sun dwellers see the crossing at the same
time.
But think a minute. The above statement says nothing about
*when* the crossings are observed; rather, it talks about the
length of time *between* successive observations. (Aka the
"period".) If I clap my hands twice, with a period of 1 sec
between them, a person 1 mile away will hear the claps
5 seconds later than I do, but the *period* between the two
claps will still be 1 second for that observer too. It's similar
for light.
[snip rest]
Mike
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
>
> Do you mean a variable speed of light in vacuum, or a variable invariant
> speed?
>
He strikes again...
Neither. I mean one way light speed in vacuum that depends on the
source or observer speed.
Mike
Tom Roberts
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>> It is true there is a confusion: we denote the constant in
>> Maxwell's equations as "c", and we denote the invariant speed in the
>> Lorentz transform as "c" -- this confusion is historical and no longer
>> implies they are really "the same thing"; there is, however,
>> considerable experimental evidence that these two usages of that symbol
>> have the same numerical value to incredible accuracy.
>>
>> IOW: if it is ultimately discovered that the photon has a nonzero mass
>> (i.e. light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant speed of the
>> Lorentz transform), SR would be unaffected but both Maxwell's equations
>> and QED would be refuted (or rather, their domains of applicability
>> would be reduced).
>
> rather than Eisntein's SR and declare Einstein wrong? I mean if that
> turns out to be the case.
What I described is known by all physicists _today_ as SR. There are
differences in derivation from that in Einstein's original 1905 paper,
but those are not sufficient to warrant a different name. We have
_learned_ a thing or three since 1905. <shrug>
> It must be obvious that if this turns out to be the case, Einstein was
> wrong. A variable c implies a much different world than suggested by SR
Which meaning of "c"???? -- see above. If in the speed of light, this
would merely indicate a falsification of Maxwell's equations and QED,
not SR.
> if one wants to look at the theory from a law-like perspective. But
> even from the model-like perspective, the new theory would falsify
> Einstein right in his postulates.
Sure. But the theory known as SR _today_ would remain.
> I mean, is it correct to continue giving credit to someone if his
> theory is falsified
You omitted the subjunctive mood; no such falsification has occurred.
> I get the feeling that SRians are sensing their time is up and struggle
> to:
No, you just do not understand either SR or how science is performed.
While we may use a different derivation for SR than Einstein originally
used, we still call it "Special Relativity" and attribute the theory to
Einstein, because that's how such attributions are done. IOW: science is
not frozen in time in 1905. <shrug>
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Tom Roberts
> When the Earth has no closing or retreating speed in relation to Jupiter the
> normal period of Io's successive crossings of Jupiter's zenith Sun line will
> be observed. The same period will also be observed by Sun dwellers.
> Now when the Earth retreats from Jupiter the observed period is elongated as
> shown by the charts. This is due to the change of period and frequency of
> the Io events as is predicted for all radiation by the Doppler effect. At
> this time in the scenario, Earthlings are classed as a moving observers of
> the Io's events.
You are confusing "Io's period" with "the period between Io's successive
zeniths AS OBSERVED ON EARTH". Your failure to make this distinction
seems to be profoundly confusing you.
> Now the second postulate of Special Relativity states that the speed of
> light is constant for all observers, moving or stationary in relation to the
> source. This is not reality.
No, it's just that this is _irrelevant_ here.
For this situation, you cannot consider the earth to be at rest in an
inertial frame for the time period between Io's successive zeniths (the
earth is in a ~circular orbit around the sun). The only useful inertial
frame here is that in which the sun is at rest (or rather, the
barycenter of the solar system, a distinction I will ignore for simplicity).
> Now quite logically "if" the speed of light were constant for a stationary
> Earth observer and remained constant as the observer starts retreating, this
> can only occur if the speed of light is infinite.
I repeat: you are confused. The constancy of the speed of light is valid
_only_ in an inertial frame, and for the situation you are trying to
consider the earth is _not_ at rest in an inertial frame -- its orbit is
an _ellipse_, not a straight line.
> Roemer's 1003 second delay and the curves presented on the URL
> http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/IoAppro.gif
> show that the speed of light is "not" infinite,...therefore the second
> postulate of Special Relativity is impossible,...There is no other option.
Yes, there is another option: your argument is wrong. <shrug>
All you need to do is apply SR in the inertial frame in which the sun is
at rest. The 1003 seconds is clearly the time it takes light to cross
the diameter of the earth's orbit (ignoring the comparatively small
motion of Jupiter during 6 months). By golly that gives a measure of the
speed of light reasonably close to the accepted value, and the
difference is well within the accuracy of Roemer's method.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Paul Cardinale
Stan Byers wrote:
[snip]
> You cannot separate the speed and timing of the digital data bits from the
> speed of the radio carrier.
>
Of course you can. You don't understand anything about the Doppler
shift.
Paul Cardinale
brian a m stuckless
Tom Roberts wrote: > > Mike wrote: > > Tom Roberts wrote: -=-
> > Am I free to call the "same theory" then Robert's Relativity, or RR,
> > rather than Eisntein's SR and declare Einstein wrong?
> What I described is known by all physicists _today_ as SR. There are
> differences in derivation from that in Einstein's original 1905 paper,
> but those are not sufficient to warrant a different name. We have
> _learned_ a thing or three since 1905. <shrug>
> While we may use a different derivation for SR than Einstein originally
> used, we still call it "Special Relativity" and attribute the theory to
> Einstein, because that's how such attributions are done. IOW: science is
> not frozen in time in 1905. <shrug>
$$ SR-2 the SEQUEL (Ph.T-coup-GR SR).
A followup to a DRAMA (SR) is a SEQUEL (SR2) ..NOT the "SAME name".
We have AUTHENTiC (Einstein) SR and we have corrupted Ph.T coup SR.
We have AUTHENTiC (Einstein) GR and we have corrupted Ph.T coup GR.
Don't CHANGE a theory and SAY it HAS the SAME name and author, duh.
Say, "Ph.T-coup-GR SR" ..or simply "SR-2". ```Brian.
>><> >><> >><> >><> >><>
> Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Re: Light Speed refutes Special Relativity 2.
Re: SR-2 the SEQUEL (Ph.T-coup-GR SR).
Mike
Tom Roberts wrote:
[snip apologies]
>
> No, you just do not understand either SR or how science is performed.
Change "you" to "I' and you have the correct statement.
> While we may use a different derivation for SR than Einstein originally
> used, we still call it "Special Relativity" and attribute the theory to
> Einstein, because that's how such attributions are done. IOW: science is
> not frozen in time in 1905. <shrug>
No, actually it is you who falls continuously into the same trap. A
true scientist would reply that he does not care to whom the theory is
attributed as long as it is valid. You keep insisting attribution of a
theory that has changed remarkably to the same man that was wrong and
this proves that your motives are beyond science, you have a specific
agenda to promote.
Relativity is all together wrong because there are so many experiments
you can do that prove it wrong. An example is the outright
falsification of GR EP by just considering a charge at rest on the
surface of the earth and a free falling laboratory. Wrt to the
laboratory, the charge should radiate, but it does not. Now, all the
talk about limiting regions of spacetime and local Ep will NOT CHANGE
the fact that the charge does not radiate.
The POR together with causality invariance satisfy both Galilean and
Lorentz transforms (with some value of c) between inertial FoR.
Einstein arbitrarily fixed c with his second postulate so that SR has
the relativity of the general Lorentz group. If c is infinity, as in
the case of source dependent c, then there is absolute time because the
relativity of the galilean group applies. Thus, the concept of
relativity is not invalidated, it is Einstein that is invalidated and
there is no way in the world that we can keep calling SR a relativity
theory with c source dependent and attribute it to Einstein.
Einsteinian Relativity, both SR/GR, seem to have been the outcome of
distorted views of reality, which have penetrated and corrupted the
whole scientific establishement to the degree that its situation seem
irreversible at the moment. There are many Tom Roberts around who will
go out of their way to convince people that there are wormholes,
blackholes, even gravity waves that despite the billion sspent were
never detected.
Mike
>
>
> Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Stan Byers
Thanks for taking the time to read the post. It does seem that there
remains some misunderstanding of the message.
Stan>> You cannot separate the speed and timing of the digital data bits
from the
>> speed of the radio carrier.
//////////////////////////
Paul>>> Of course you can. You don't understand anything about the Doppler
> shift.
////////////////////////////
The point I am trying to make clear is that images and data and information
travel through space and atmospheres at the same speed of their carriers.
Whether the carriers are light or radio waves. The information cannot travel
any faster or slower than the carrier.
If you have knowledge of examples where this is not true a link or citation
providing the data will be appreciated. The web paper "Light Speed versus
Special Relativity" provides
a detailed example where the images from Io travel at the same speed as the
light transmitting the images.
The following from the paper may help clarify the concept.
When a light beam is interrupted by a toothed wheel, it is never assumed
that the dark sections do not travel at the same speed as the light. In fact
many light speed experiments use this obvious physical phenomenon to measure
the speed of light. With the same reasoning it appears obvious that images
transported by a light beam have to travel at the same speed as the light
beam. Movie projectors provide examples of the application of this physical
phenomenon. When this reasoning is applied to the images of Io's eclipse
events, it does not seem possible to question the fact that the event images
travel at the same speed as their constituent light. If there is a Doppler
effect for the frequency of the light, there will also have to be an
identical Doppler effect for events or digital information,.. and visa
versa. It is necessary that this mutual relationship, between these two
Doppler phenomena,...is clear to the reader for understanding the main
argument of this paper.
I do hope this clarifies the concept at issue.
A review of the complete paper "Light Speed versus Special Relativity" may
provide more insight to the issues. URL
http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/litespd_vs_sr.htm
Cheers, Stan Byers
"Paul Cardinale" <pcard...@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:1138851860.5...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Stan Byers wrote:
> [snip]
>> You cannot separate the speed and timing of the digital data bits from
>> the
>> speed of the radio carrier.
>////////////////////////
Tom Roberts
> Relativity is all together wrong because there are so many experiments
> you can do that prove it wrong.
Except that no reliable and reproducible experiment has ever actually
managed to do that. And there have been _a_lot_ of attempts.
Need I point out that your _guesses_ do not count? Physics is an
_experimental_ science, not a guessing game.
> An example is the outright
> falsification of GR EP by just considering a charge at rest on the
> surface of the earth and a free falling laboratory. Wrt to the
> laboratory, the charge should radiate, but it does not. Now, all the
> talk about limiting regions of spacetime and local Ep will NOT CHANGE
> the fact that the charge does not radiate.
Your _guesses_ and conclusion are wrong: an actual computation in GR
shows that indeed such a charge does not radiate to a detector that is
also fixed to the surface of the earth, but does radiate to a detector
in freefall. Unfortunately, current technology is not sensitive enough
to actually measure this to test the GR prediction.
Your basic error is trying to discuss "radiation" in the abstract --
discuss _actual_measurements_ and you'll avoid this error. So describe
what a given detector will measure, not whether or not "radiation" is
present.
> The POR together with causality invariance satisfy both Galilean and
> Lorentz transforms (with some value of c) between inertial FoR.
> Einstein arbitrarily fixed c with his second postulate so that SR has
> the relativity of the general Lorentz group. If c is infinity, as in
> the case of source dependent c, then there is absolute time because the
> relativity of the galilean group applies.
Except that your _guesses_ simply do not apply to the world we inhabit.
The invariant velocity c of the Lorentz group, in the world we actually
do inhabit, is _observed_ to be the same as the speed of light to within
fantastic accuracy. The Galilean group is soundly refuted experimentally.
> [... further embellishment of the above errors]
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Mike
Tom Roberts wrote:
[snip]
>
> Your _guesses_ and conclusion are wrong: an actual computation in GR
> shows that indeed such a charge does not radiate to a detector that is
> also fixed to the surface of the earth, but does radiate to a detector
> in freefall. Unfortunately, current technology is not sensitive enough
> to actually measure this to test the GR prediction.
>
...and your message was detected by me on the surface of the earth but
not by a free falling astronaut since his current web browser
technology cannot detect it yet.
unfortunately, I do not expect you to be ashamed for the things you
claim. All crackpots and cranks, fraudelent scientists and the like,
when refuted will cry that the technology is not advanced enough to
detect their predictions.
Charge is an invariant qunantity and it cannot radiate wrt to one
observer and not wrt to another since this will violate charge
conservation and actually this is another paradox of GR like the twin
paradox of SR. Anything you attempt to do will not resolve the paradox
because it reveals the inconsistency between mathematical statements
like th POR and the way the world operates. Whilst GR and SR maybe
mathematically consistent, they are physically inconsistent and it
turns out, all experimental work is done in relation to the
mathematical consistence whereas the physical inconsistence part is
ignored.
Listen to this once more and stop being ridiculous. A charge cannot
radiate wrt to one observer and not wrt to another. You are making a
fool of yourself and demonstrate irreversibly you do not have a concept
of physics.
Mike
>
>
> Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
dej4
...
>
> Neither. I mean one way light speed in vacuum that depends on the
> source or observer speed.
>
> Mike
You can assume such a thing by absurd, apply the Ives-Stilwell
experiment to it and you will get a contradiction. So it does not
exist.
Plonk.
Tom Roberts
> Charge is an invariant qunantity and it cannot radiate wrt to one
> observer and not wrt to another since this will violate charge
> conservation
This is simply not true. Radiation is not charge. <shrug>
> A charge cannot
> radiate wrt to one observer and not wrt to another.
Sure it can. Maxwell's equations and QED both say an inertial charge
_must_ radiate differently into two detectors, when one is unaccelerated
and the other is accelerated nonuniformly. <shrug>
I cannot help it if you don't like this _mathematical_ result -- it is
_absolutely_required_ for consistency in the Maxwell's equations (and QED).
And I cannot help it that current technology is insufficient to measure
this predicted phenomenon and remove all doubts.
I repeat: don't attempt to discuss "radiation" in the abstract, as that
is rather wishy-washy. Instead, discuss what specific detectors will
detect. That way you discuss a measurement, and all issues of different
coordinates disappear.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Autymn D. C.
> Relativity is all together wrong because there are so many experiments
> you can do that prove it wrong. An example is the outright
nope
> falsification of GR EP by just considering a charge at rest on the
> surface of the earth and a free falling laboratory. Wrt to the
> laboratory, the charge should radiate, but it does not. Now, all the
> talk about limiting regions of spacetime and local Ep will NOT CHANGE
> the fact that the charge does not radiate.
Acceleration from gravity or electricity or whatever needs motion, as
it comes from the restoring force.
> Charge is an invariant qunantity and it cannot radiate wrt to one
> observer and not wrt to another since this will violate charge
> conservation and actually this is another paradox of GR like the twin
> paradox of SR. Anything you attempt to do will not resolve the paradox
> because it reveals the inconsistency between mathematical statements
> like th POR and the way the world operates. Whilst GR and SR maybe
may be
> mathematically consistent, they are physically inconsistent and it
> turns out, all experimental work is done in relation to the
> mathematical consistence whereas the physical inconsistence part is
> ignored.
Charge is not energy, shithead. Only your mind is inconsistent with
fusics, and you toflunked my credibility test:
<http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/10b82e2222cc6105/82c95a1dff6f9ded#82c95a1dff6f9ded>.
Autymn D. C.
> When a light beam is interrupted by a toothed wheel, it is never assumed
> that the dark sections do not travel at the same speed as the light. In fact
You pulled this out of your arse. Dark is not liht, and neither are
many signals one signal.
> many light speed experiments use this obvious physical phenomenon to measure
> the speed of light. With the same reasoning it appears obvious that images
> transported by a light beam have to travel at the same speed as the light
signals, not images
> beam. Movie projectors provide examples of the application of this physical
> phenomenon. When this reasoning is applied to the images of Io's eclipse
> events, it does not seem possible to question the fact that the event images
> travel at the same speed as their constituent light. If there is a Doppler
> effect for the frequency of the light, there will also have to be an
> identical Doppler effect for events or digital information,.. and visa
vice
Tom Ring
> Shithead Roberts gets his data from amazon.com and google.com
>
A reasonable discussion does not include the word "shithead". Go back
to grade school kid.
tom
K0TAR
Tom Ring
> Roberts is a totally deranged shithead. <shrug>
>
And you have a hopelessly limited vocabulary.
tom
K0TAR
Tom Ring
Have you ever wondered why almost no one responds to your babble?
brian a m stuckless
Why did you?
Mike
Autymn D. C. wrote:
> Charge is not energy, shithead. Only your mind is inconsistent with
> fusics, and you toflunked my credibility test:
Go ahead and teach us fusics while we teach you physics, incompetent
crank who never studied physics. Nobody gives a flying phulk about any
test of yours, go to a college first and pass physics 101 and then come
back to lick our uss idiot.
Mike
Mike
Tom Roberts wrote:
> And I cannot help it that current technology is insufficient to measure
> this predicted phenomenon and remove all doubts.
>
"I am sorry I cannot prove to you right now unicrons exist, I am sure
my theory about unicorns is correct, I blame it on technology, but
please keep believing in unicorns until I will be able to prove their
existence because my math says so."
Isn't something like that you are asking the society to do Dr. Roberts?
On thhave now contrary, the technology is sufficient at this point and
your theory has been falsified.
Since I have now evidence from your postings here that you have the
nerve to appeal to unobvservable phenomena to justify your dogmatic
beliefs, and as a pragmatic person I find this behavior
incomprehensible and even suspicious, I give you the ROYAL:
PLONK
Mike
>
>
> Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Dirk Van de moortel
"Mike"
aka Bill Smith
aka Eleatis
aka Undeniable
<ele...@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1139050613.2...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
So you can start "hidding behind your own ratten fingure":
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/RattenFingure.html
:-)
Dirk Vdm
Tom Roberts
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>> And I cannot help it that current technology is insufficient to measure
>> this predicted phenomenon and remove all doubts.
>>
> "I am sorry I cannot prove to you right now unicrons exist, I am sure
> my theory about unicorns is correct, I blame it on technology, but
> please keep believing in unicorns until I will be able to prove their
> existence because my math says so."
>
> Isn't something like that you are asking the society to do Dr. Roberts?
No. Not at all. Because your unicorns have _never_ been observed.
The situation is this: We have a self-consistent theory of gravitation
and electrodynamics that together describe literally thousands of
measurements and experiments that have been performed, and no
reproducible experiment or measurement has ever been found to be
significantly different from the predictions of this theory. It's just
that the _specific_ measurement you ask for is beyond our current
capabilities, so all we have are theoretical computations, not real
measurements.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Tom Ring
>>
>>Have you ever wondered why almost no one responds to your babble?
>
>
> Why did you?
>
I did not respond, I asked a question, dimwit.
Tom
brian a m stuckless
Feel free to respond, when you're READY, Tom.
$$ This is NOT a reply. ```Brian.
brian a m stuckless
Feel free to respond, when you're READY, Tom.
$$ This is NOT a reply. ```Brian.
Re: Light Speed refutes Special Relativity 2.
Re: This is NOT a reply, Tom.
Autymn D. C.
I studied physics and found it wronger than you could ever learn it,
cretin:
<http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22Scientists+have+it+wrong%22&start=0&scoring=d&>,
<http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Galileo+Autymn>,
<http://groups.google.com/groups?q=blackbodies+Autymn>,
<http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22New+Model%22+Autymn>,
<http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22Read+this+carefully%22+Autymn>.
The others may be interestate in my new disproof, that mathematicians
have it wrong also: <http://egroups.com/message/free_energy/21716>,
older reference
<http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22vector+temperature%22+Autymn>.
-Aut
The world is my bitch.
Autymn D. C.
> I did not respond, I asked a question, dimwit.
Rock Brentwood
> If SR is about space-time geometry then it is disproprove
> by the twins paradox as Langevin proposed.
As eveyrone knows, that's backwards: the Twin Paradox is a paradox of
*Newtonian* spacetime, not Minkowski spacetime; since the contradiction
that ensues from the paradox is a contradiction of one of the central
assumptions of Galilean Relativity (absolute simultaneity), which is
absent in Poincare' Relativity, not any of Poincare' Relativity! It's
not a paradox with respect to Poincare' Relativity, since the culprit
assumption (of absolute simultaneity) is absent there.
Hexenmeister
"Rock Brentwood" <mark...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1140088635.0...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Sue... wrote:
>> If SR is about space-time geometry then it is disproprove
>> by the twins paradox as Langevin proposed.
>
> As eveyrone knows, that's backwards:
As everyone knows, bright green flying elephants lay eggs in black holes.
As everyone knows, the Easter bunny steals the eggs.
As everyone knows, that's why there are no bright green flying elephants
left.
> the Twin Paradox is a paradox of
> *Newtonian* spacetime, not Minkowski spacetime; since the contradiction
> that ensues from the paradox is a contradiction of one of the central
> assumptions of Galilean Relativity (absolute simultaneity), which is
> absent in Poincare' Relativity, not any of Poincare' Relativity!
As everyone (except shitwitted relativists) knows simultaneity is not
absent in Nature. Ask Cassini the time.
As everyone knows,
tau = (t-vx/cยฒ)/sqrt(1-vยฒ/cยฒ)
tau = (t-uy/cยฒ)/sqrt(1-uยฒ/cยฒ)
tau = (t-wz/cยฒ)/sqrt(1-wยฒ/cยฒ)
xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-vยฒ/cยฒ)
eta = (y-ut)/sqrt(1-uยฒ/cยฒ)
zeta= (z-wt)/sqrt(1-wยฒ/cยฒ)
If one is right they all are, if one is wrong they all are.
Carry three watches or do not move sideways or ride an elevator.
Personally I prefer three witches:
Double double, toil and trouble,
Fire burn and Poincare's bubble. --- Pop!
> It's
> not a paradox with respect to Poincare' Relativity, since the culprit
> assumption (of absolute simultaneity) is absent there.
As everyone knows, it is a paradox in mathematics.
As everyone knows, relativists are totally incompetent blustering idiots
and trolls.
Hexenmeister.
Stan Byers
Greetings, Light Speed Investigators,
This post is an update for the web article "Light Speed versus Special
Relativity"
The article is available on the web address:
http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/litespd_vs_sr.htm
It will be placed here in sections to avoid large posts and allow text and
link printing.
ABSTRACT Public Domain information: In order to promote the
widest possible distribution of this Light Speed versus Special Relativity
article, the content authored by Stanley Byers is granted to be in the
public domain.
This paper reviews the available speed of light (c) measurements of 1994 AD
that demonstrate speed variations of inter-planetary light as measured
relative to the motion of:... planets, satellites, the solar system, and the
Milky Way galaxy.
The idea that light from a remote source maintains a constant speed (c)
relative to all observers regardless of their differing speeds and
directions, as proposed by the theory of Special Relativity, is shown to be
incompatible with the characteristics of light's speed demonstrated by the
1994 AD data, analysis and charts of Io's eclipse timing.
The one single fact that demonstrates that light speed is not constant to
all observers is the 1003 second delay" in Io's eclipse timing,... as
discovered by Roemer circa 1676 AD.
The given facts in this analysis are:
The light from Jupiter takes 1003 seconds to cross from the near point of
Earth's orbit to the far point at the speed of 300,000 km/sec, (c) in
relation to Jupiter.
It is known that Earth takes about 200 days to make this same trip. The
average retreating speed in relation to Jupiter is 17.361 km/sec.
When two things race between two points at the same time at differing
speeds,...they have a relative speed that is equal to the difference between
the highest and lowest speed. Therefore the average relative speed is
approximately 300,000 minus 17.361 km/sec.
Conclusion:...This relative velocity between the retreating Earth and the
Jupiter/Io light train is not constant at 300,000 km/sec, and therefore
light does not maintain a constant speed (c), relative to all observers, as
postulated by Special Relativity.
The remainder of this paper presents extensive detailed data and graphs
supporting this conclusion, but it can be seen that Roemer's 1003 second
delay in Io's eclipse event timing is the single data point that clearly
demonstrates that it is not possible for the light speed in the intervening
space to be constant at (c) in relation to the retreating Earth,...but of
course it remains constant at (c) in relation to Jupiter.
Roemer, many other astronomers and NASA have established that the eclipse
period of Io in relation to the Sun line to Jupiter is 152,915.9 seconds.
The important point concerning this period is the fact that it does not
vary.
If the Earth could linger at the near point to Jupiter, it could be observed
that Io's timing in crossing the Sun line to Jupiter does not vary over the
years. It would make a very accurate clock for Sun dwellers.
When the Earth starts it's orbit and is leaving the near point,...if the
speed of light remained constant relative to the Earth, then,... the timing
of Io's period as observed from the Earth would not change,...regardless of
the longitudinal speed of the Earth relative to Jupiter.
All succeeding eclipse events observed during movement would remain in
timing synchronism with the events as observed at the stationary near point.
If this were true, then there would have been no 1003 second accumulated
delay for Roemer to record.
If the mechanics of the phrase,...[ if the speed of light remained constant
relative to the Earth, then the observed timing of Io's period would not
change ],... is not completely clear, the reader will not be able to
understand the main argument of this Light Speed versus Special Relative
paper.
A second concept which is also critical to understanding the argument
is,...[ you cannot separate the speed and timing of the eclipse event image
from the speed of the light. ]
Accuracy in measuring the eclipse timing and accuracy in the graphs
demonstrating the changes of the eclipse period timing is not critical nor
required to validate this argument. The single fact that Roemer's 1003
second delay exists,...makes the second postulate of Special Relative
impossible.
This paper is an extension of the work available on the web page "Radiant
Pressure Model of Remote Force" .
URL http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/index.html
A review of the section titled "The Variable Speed of Light" may aid in
perusing this article.
URL http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/CreatMomtm.htm#VariableSpeedLight
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Light's Variable Speed Relative to Observers in Motion
In our experience with the speed of sound in air including the Doppler
effect, we have found that the speed of sound through the air is independent
of the relative speed between source and receiver. The speed of sound is
constant only in relation to the homogenous medium, through which it is
traveling. Sound travels as a longitudinal resonance wave within the
physical properties of its medium.
Circa 1676 Olaf Roemer's Io eclipse timing measurements demonstrated that
the speed of light is not infinite. Prior to this discovery it was a popular
belief that light's speed was infinite. Using the eclipse period timing of
Jupiter's moon Io, Roemer found that light took approximately 1000 seconds
to cross the 300 million kilometer diameter of the earth's orbit, indicating
a speed of about 300,000 km/sec. Thereafter it was assumed that
interplanetary light traveled at (c) through a medium of infinitesimal
material particles. This all pervading medium was called the Aether (ether).
The speed of light was assumed to be constant in relation to this material
Aether of space, in the same manner that the speed of sound is constant
relative to its medium. This material Aether was visualized as pervading all
planets, objects and space in its entirety . Therefore it was assumed that
due to the orbital speed of the Earth, that light from space would show a
measurable change in speed depending on the direction of the Earth's motion
through this presumed stationary material "Aether". It also seemed
reasonable that the light speed perpendicular to the direction of the
Earth's motion would always remain at c, ( 300,000 km/sec ).
In ~1887 Michelson and Morley performed a famous experiment where they
compared the speed of local light in the direction of Earth's velocity to
the speed of light transverse to the Earth's motion. They found that the
motion of the Earth had no effect on the velocity of local light,...relative
to the Earth and within its cloak of atmosphere and secondary radiation.
http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/CreatMomtm.htm#SecRadiationCloak
The surprising results of this local MMX experiment were widely and
erroneously extrapolated to a belief that all of light, including light
from non local sources in space, also traveled at the constant c,...
"relative to the observing location". In parallel with this development the
theory of Special Relativity was published circa 1905, with main tenets that
included the concept that not only local light, but that all of light in
space,... traveled at c,..." in relation to the observer",...regardless of
the observers velocity in relation to the source. To be continued on the
next post.
The links and URLs used on the web page "Light Speed versus Relativity"
follow:
http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/IoAppro.gif
http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/jupiter2.gif
http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/IoEcipChange4.gif
http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/grav11.htm
http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/CreatMomtm.htm#VariableSpeedLight
http://www.ed.mtu.edu/ED3100/fall04/klwarsin/TheDopplerEffectWhatCausesIt.html
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/9680.html
http://books.nap.edu/html/gravitational_physics/
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=77441
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html
http://www.slac.stanford.edu
http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/relativity.html
http://www.eso.org/outreach/spec-prog/aol/market/experiments/advanced/skills302.html
http://www.amsmeteors.org/mallama/galilean/timings.html
Radiant Pressure Model of Remote Force
http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/grav11.htm
http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/ForceInteract.htm#InertiaRevised
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/2001/cassini_010629.html
http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
To be continued. Comments and rebuttals are welcome.
Stan Byers
***
Stan Byers
Update of the web article "Light Speed versus Special Relativity"
URL http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/litespd_vs_sr.htm
Continued from previous post on this thread.
Special Relativity Advocates
The following list of Special Relativity Theory advocates is presented to
demonstrate how extensively unfounded "faith" in the "theory" has
propagated through the physical "science" community.
** The following quotes are from the book GRAVITATIONAL PHYSICS by the
Committee on Gravitational Physics of the National Research Council and the
National Academy of Science. It is clearly evident by this book that the
Committee on Gravitational Physics is a strong advocate of Special and
General Relativity and is advising that our government should continue
funding research in support of Einstein's theory of relative. Unfortunately
the committee did not publish the dissenting opinions for this study.
Selected QUOTES:
QUOTE 1 The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit,
self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in science and
engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology
and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter
granted by Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to
advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters.
GRAVITATIONAL PHYSICS Exploring the Structure of Space and Time
Committee on Gravitational Physics
Board on Physics and Astronomy
Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Applications
National Research Council
QUOTE 2 The committee's work was supported by grants from the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Science Foundation, and
the U.S. Department of Energy.
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the
Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn
from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, The National Academy
of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee
responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and
with regard for appropriate balance.
QUOTE 3 II. ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE PAST DECADE
The theory of gravity proposed by Isaac Newton more than 300 years ago
provides a unified explanation of how objects fall and how planets orbit the
Sun. But Newton's theory is not consistent with Einstein's 1905 principle of
special relativity. In 1915, Einstein proposed a new, relativistic theory of
gravity--general relativity. When gravity is weak ---for example, on Earth
or elsewhere in the solar system---general relativity's corrections to
Newton's theory are tiny. But general relativity also predicts new
strong--gravity phenomena such as gravitational waves, black holes, and the
big bang that are quantitatively and qualitatively different from those
accounted for in Newtonian gravity. Modern gravitational physics focuses on
these new phenomena and on high--precision tests of general relativity.
UN-QUOTE
The book GRAVITATIONAL PHYSICS by the Committee on Gravitational Physics of
the National Research Council and the National Academy of Sciences,...is
recommended for relativity believers only,... and is available for online
reading, download and purchase via these links:
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/9680.html
http://books.nap.edu/html/gravitational_physics/
** A quote from Matthew Chalmers' article in Physics World January 2005,
"Five Papers That Shook The World" , provides another view of this Special
Relativity theory.
QUOTE: True to style, Einstein swept away the concept of the ether (which
in any case had not been detected experimentally) in one audacious step. He
postulated that no matter how fast you are moving, light will always appear
to travel at the same velocity:-- the speed of light is a fundamental
constant of nature that cannot be exceeded.
Combined with the requirement that the laws of physics are identical in all
"inertial" (i.e. non-accelerating) frames, Einstein built a completely new
theory of motion that revealed Newtonian mechanics to be an approximation
that only holds at low, everyday speeds. The theory later became known as
the special theory of relativity, - special because it applies only to
non-accelerating frames - and led to the realization that space and time are
intimately linked to one another. UN-QUOTE
** The following quote from Steven Hawking's famous book "A Brief History
of Time", page 20, provides another description of the concepts contained
in Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity.
QUOTE: The fundamental postulate of the theory of relativity, as it was
called, was that the laws of science should be the same for all freely
moving observers, no matter what their speed. This was true for Newton's
laws of motion, but now the idea was extended to include Maxwell's theory
and the speed of light:...all observers should measure the same speed of
light, no matter how fast they are moving. UN-QUOTE
** Britannica's web site provides the following quote about Special
Relativity.
QUOTE: Since he (Einstein) believed in (and experiment confirmed) the
(extended) principle of relativity, which meant that one cannot, by any
means, including the use of light waves, distinguish between two inertial
frames in uniform relative motion, Einstein chose to give up the Galilean
transformations and replaced them with the Lorentz Transformations.
UN-QUOTE
The article containing the above quote may still be available at this URL
link.
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=77441
** The Physics FAQ found on the web provides another view listed as
"Special Relativity" ,
QUOTE: It is a basic postulate of the theory of relativity that the speed
of light is constant. This can be broken down into two parts:
The speed of light is independent of the motion of the observer.
The speed of light does not vary with time or place.
To state that the speed of light is independent of the velocity of the
observer is very counterintuitive. Some people even refuse to accept this
as a logically consistent possibility, but in 1905 Einstein was able to show
that it is perfectly consistent if you are prepared to give up assumptions
about the absolute nature of space and time.
Updated 1997 by Steve Carlip.
Original by Philip Gibbs 1996. UN-QUOTE
The link for the above quote is
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html
** The Stanford Linear Accelerator Center's web site
http://www.slac.stanford.edu
provides an educational page
http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/relativity.html
which gives the following opinions regarding Special Relativity.
QUOTE: Theoretical Basis for Special Relativity
Einstein's theory of special relativity results from two statements -- the
two basic postulates of special relativity:
The speed of light is the same for all observers, no matter what their
relative speeds.
The laws of physics are the same in any inertial (that is, non-accelerated)
frame of reference. This means that the laws of physics observed by a
hypothetical observer traveling with a relativistic particle must be the
same as those observed by an observer who is stationary in the laboratory.
Given these two statements, Einstein showed how definitions of momentum and
energy must be refined and how quantities such as length and time must
change from one observer to another in order to get consistent results for
physical quantities such as particle half-life. To decide whether his
postulates are a correct theory of nature, physicists test whether the
predictions of Einstein's theory match observations. Indeed many such tests
have been made -- and the answers Einstein gave are right every time!
UN-QUOTE
** The book, Princeton Guide to Advanced Physics, publishes another view
as:
The Postulates of Special Relativity, pg 169.
QUOTE: All observers, even when in uniform relative motion, will find the
same value c for the speed of light in empty space. UN-QUOTE
** Werner Heisenberg's book Physics and Philosophy (pg. 114) provides his
opinion about Special Relativity:
QUOTE: The decisive step, however, was taken in the paper by Einstein in
1905 in which he established the "apparent" time of the Lorentz
transformation as the "real" time and abolished what had been called the
"real" time by Lorentz. This was a change in the very foundations of
physics; an unexpected and very radical change that required all the courage
of a young and revolutionary genius. UN-QUOTE
***
The level of detail used in the above review of relativity advocates may
seem excessive to readers familiar with this issue, but the list of quotes
included above is just a small sample demonstrating the popularity of the
Special Relativity theory. Notice of the existence of Universities or
Government Science institutions that propose concepts which refute the above
quoted interpretations of Special Relativity (SR) will be appreciated.
The intention here is to provide enough detail, data and transparency to
allow those with opposing opinions to easily use this same material from the
Earth/Jupiter/Io scenario, in order to demonstrate with specificity, the
logic of , # 1, #2, and #3.
#1...Einstein's SR postulate,...QUOTE: "There exists a coordinate system
with respect to which every light ray propagates in vacuum with the velocity
c". UN-QUOTE ,.....from Einstein's 1912 SR manuscript.
#2...Their reconciliation of the SR postulate with the opposite conclusions
indicated by this data.
#3...The changes necessary in this accounting that will bring this
Jupiter/Io data into agreement with SR.
In the vast world wide web and available publications there may be records
of:
A... Articles that interpret Einstein's Special Relativity theory in a
manner that provides agreement with Roemer's data.
B... Experiments and analysis by others that appear to demonstrate that free
space light speed is not dependent on the velocity of the source.
Limited searches by this author have not revealed such information.
Citations or notice of links to such information, especially from any SR or
GR relativity advocates,...professors,...researchers,...U.S. Government
agencies,...Grant Authorities,...Universities,...Gravity Probe B project
managers,...and LIGO project managers, will be appreciated and promptly
acknowledged on this forum.
Io's Eclipse Delays
An analysis of light's speed in relation to the motion of Earth is given
here by reviewing Roemer's discovery and charting Io's 1994 AD eclipse data
available from Astronomy On Line's web site. Olaf Roemer's measurements of
1676 AD demonstrated a finite value for the speed of light through
interplanetary space. Roemer noticed that the eclipse event timing for
Jupiter's moon Io was delayed approximately 1000 seconds when the Earth was
at its farthest point from Jupiter in comparison to the event timing
measured at the closest point in Earth's orbit. With the current knowledge
of the diameter of Earth's orbit at approximately 300 million km, Roemer's
delay of 1003 sec. indicates that Sun light reflected from Jupiter travels
through space in relation to Jupiter at a speed of 299,103 km per second,
(c).
During Earth's orbital trip from the point nearest to Jupiter (opposition),
to the farthest point (conjunction), the moon Io completes 113 eclipse
cycles as timed at the near point. If this is an exact calculation then the
last eclipse event image, number 113 is crossing the near point when the
Earth is at the mathematical far point. This last event will not be observed
in the vicinity of the far point (conjunction) for another 1003 seconds
(16.7 minutes). Many books and reviewers of this phenomenon list the time
for Earth's journey from the near point to the far point as 200 days and
equate this to 113 Io eclipse event periods as observed at the near point.
NASA's JPL Labs provides data listing a mathematical time period of
152,853.5 seconds (~1.77 days) for Io's sidereal revolution. Io's eclipse
revolution time is 152,915.9 seconds , which is 62.4 seconds longer than the
sidereal revolution time, due to the relative motion of the Sun line.
The argument about the velocity of Io in orbit does not need to be
considered. You can consider the shadow of Io cast on the surface of Jupiter
when Io crosses the Sun line,...as representing the timed event. The change
in period per Io revolution will remain the same, The only two velocities
that need to be considered are "c" and the longitudinal velocity of Earth,
both in relation to Jupiter and Jupiter's inertial reference frame.
Roemer's 1003 Second Delay
In order to clarify the issues of this argument we will linearize the
arithmetic by assuming to take a spacecraft trip from Earth at the near
point, following the diameter to the future far point. This constant
longitudinal speed will be set to equal the Earth's average longitudinal
speed when retreating in relation to Jupiter. In this scenario the
spacecraft will rendezvous with the Earth at the far point after 113
periods elapse (~200 days) plus the 1003 second delay. The 113th event and
the spacecraft will arrive at the far point with Roemer's famous 1003 second
delay. The longitudinal distance traveled relative to Jupiter is the
diameter of the Earth's orbit, ...~300 million km. Therefore Earth's
retreating longitudinal trip of 300 million km in 113 orbit periods (~200
days), requires an average speed of 17.36 km per second in relation to
Jupiter. The Earth only moves in its orbit approximately one hundredth of a
degree during the 1003 second delay. Therefore assuming that the far point
and the intercept point for the 113 eclipse event are the same does not
introduce any significant error.
Since the diameter distance of 300 million km is evenly divided by the
constant speed of the spacecraft , the distance from the start ( near point)
to the point for the first observed eclipse event will be the total
distance, divided by the number of Io eclipse periods, 113. This places the
point of observation, for the first eclipse observed by the spacecraft in
motion,...at 2.6549 million km from the near point.
The time accounting tells us that if there are 113 Io eclipse orbits during
this trip, and the last eclipse event is observed and measured to be 1003
seconds later than predicted,...therefore at the half way point in distance
for the linear trip the delay must have been about 501.5 seconds. Continuing
with this accounting, the first observed eclipse after leaving the near
point on the linear trip, must have exhibited a delay of 8.876 seconds. This
is obtained by dividing the total delay of 1003 seconds by the total 113
eclipse observations.
When a light beam is interrupted by a toothed wheel, it is never assumed
that the dark sections do not travel at the same speed as the light. In fact
many light speed experiments use this obvious physical phenomenon to measure
the speed of light. With the same reasoning it appears obvious that images
transported by a light beam have to travel at the same speed as the light
beam. Movie projectors provide examples of the application of this physical
phenomenon. When this reasoning is applied to the images of Io's eclipse
events, it does not seem possible to question the fact that the event images
travel at the same speed as their constituent light. If there is a Doppler
effect for the frequency of the light, there will also have to be a Doppler
effect for events or digital information,.. and visa versa. It is necessary
that this mutual relationship, between these two Doppler phenomena,...is
clear to the reader for understanding the main argument of this paper.
Now if the spacecraft leaves Earth at the near point and at the observation
of an eclipse event, then the time to the next observed eclipse event will
be 8.876 seconds longer than a stationary period, as calculated above.
The near point and Jupiter have no relative velocity, therefore the train of
light imaging Io's eclipse events is traveling at c in relation to:..
Jupiter, and the near point and the first rendezvous point. .
When the next eclipse event passes the near point with the speed of c, it
will continue toward the rendezvous with the spacecraft, and it will take
light 8.876 seconds to cover the 2.6549 million km to reach the first
rendezvous point. This, of course, is the reason for the delay observed by
the spacecraft in motion.
Since the light speed, c, in relation to Jupiter is 299,103 km/s , and the
spacecraft speed in relation to Jupiter is 17.361 km/sec,...this results in
an average reduced relative speed of 299,085.6 km/sec. between the eclipse
event image motion and the spacecraft motion.
If the speed of the train of light and events from Jupiter was not reduced
in relation to the retreating Earth, succeeding observations of eclipse
events would remain in synchronism with the observations of the near point.
How could a station 2.6549 million miles further from Jupiter observe an
eclipse event at the same time that it is observed at the near point?
The only way there could exist an absence of an observed delay during
motion,...would be if the light speed was infinite. There would be no delays
during the 200 day retreating movement, and the accumulation of 113
individual delays to equal the total 1003 second delay would not occur.
Therefore there would not be a 1003 second delay to be manifested at the far
point.
Of course Roemer's 1003 second delay of 1676 AD exists,... and is still
measurable today. For 300 plus years this delay has been demonstrating that
light from Jupiter exhibits a reduced speed in relation to the retreating
motion of Earth. On Earth's return trip a proportionately higher relative
light speed will be exhibited as Earth approaches Jupiter. Upon returning to
the near point,... Io's observed events will again be in phase synchronism
with the previous eclipse events at the near point.
With the light and the space craft racing to the same point at their
different speeds,...how is it possible to subscribe to the concept of
Special Relativity (SR) that states that the relative light speed does not
decrease with changing motion. Furthermore, on Earth's return trip the
relative speed will be greater than the "upper limit and constant speed of
light" of SR.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delay versus Transverse Motion.
There exists an argument that attributes the period changes which occur
during Earth's orbit to the changing line of sight angle for viewing the
eclipse events. If this argument were true the maximum changes in the length
of the observed period would occur during the orbital positions when the
Earth's motion is transverse to the line of sight to Jupiter. The following
graphs plot the changing delay time from actual eclipse data recorded for a
retreating and approaching orbital trip. It is seen from the following
graphs that the maximum changes in the length of the observed period occur
during the orbital positions that provide the highest relative longitudinal
velocity between the two planets.
When the Earth is nearest to Jupiter during Earth's orbital trip,... Earth's
motion is transverse to the line of sight to Jupiter. At this point of
Earth's orbital travel, it is observed that the orbital period of Jupiter's
moon Io is essentially the same as the JPL's published eclipse revolution
period of 152,915.9758 seconds. Since there is no relative longitudinal
motion between the two planets at this near point in Earth's orbit, the
speed of the eclipse light train periods is taken to be 300,000 km/sec, c,
in relation to both planets. If the Earth could remain at this nearest point
for a few orbits of Io it would be found that each succeeding eclipse event
would occur with the same predictable period.
As the Earth continues in its orbit and leaves this point nearest to Jupiter
there arises an increasing longitudinal velocity between the two planets.
As the light train speed is reduced relative to the retreating Earth, and
remains at c in relation to Jupiter, there will be a measurable increasing
delay in the events as observed from Earth. The following graphs display the
changes in event timing (changing period) in relation to the changing
longitudinal velocity as the Earth retreats from and approaches toward
Jupiter.
When the Earth retreats from Jupiter the relative longitudinal speed
increases to its maximum which is approximately the orbital speed of Earth
(29.79 km/sec). This maximum occurs when Earth has traveled through
approximately one quarter of its orbit. Since this velocity is nearly one
hundredth of one percent (1 X 10^-4) of the speed of light,...the light
train traveling past the moving Earth will appear slower by this same
percentage. Since the relative light speed is slower it follows that the
apparent time period between eclipse events will necessarily be longer by
the same percentage. Taking one hundredth of one percent of the eclipse
period of 152,916 seconds gives the period a maximum elongation of 15.29
seconds. The charts of eclipse period elongations and reductions are given
below and clearly show the 15.29 second deferential.
These charts were derived from the eclipse event observation records
provided on the web by Astronomy On-Line at the URL
http://www.eso.org/outreach/spec-prog/aol/market/experiments/advanced/skills302.html
When this Earth/Jupiter/Io scenario is analyzed with the concept of Special
Relativity in mind, it is obvious that the light train leaving Jupiter does
not arrive at a retreating Earth with a constant speed of c in relation to
Earth. However once a light beam from Jupiter enters the Earth's cloak of
atmosphere and secondary radiation,... it's locally measured speed between
two points becomes c in relation to Earth. This has no influence on the
Doppler frequency changes and the Doppler period changes which are caused by
the relative speed changes due to Earth's orbital velocity referenced to
Jupiter and the eclipse light train. If our atmosphere exhibited a local
light speed radically different then c, Roemer's delay would still be
evident.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chart of Io's apparent eclipse timing as the Earth Retreats from Jupiter
http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/IoEcipChange4.gif
Chart of Io's apparent eclipse timing as the Earth Approaches Jupiter
http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/IoAppro.gif
When reviewing these charts it must be recognized that only the shape of the
curve is needed to demonstrate the main point:...the maximum timing change
occurs during Earths maximum longitudinal speed in relation to Jupiter.
These charts are generated by producing a moving average of an incomplete
set of eclipse events. A complete record of a set of 113 eclipse events is
not available,...the Sun gets in the way. The moving average is obtained
with the trend line sub-program available in the MS Excel spreadsheet
program. The chart lines would not be offset and would intercept the zero
second delay line at the near and far points, except for the Sun blocking
some data points and the averaging characteristic of the sub-program. The
absolute values shown on the changing delay chart should not be used for
precise representations of the actual delays corresponding to Earth's actual
orbital positions. The data points were not recorded to the second, so this
necessitated the use of a moving average plot to obtain the actual trend.
The 1994 AD data sets used from Astronomy On Line were checked against the
scattered data points available from the Galilean Satellite Eclipse Timing
Data. The citation for this data is "Galilean Satellite Eclipse Timing Data
by A. Mallama, P. Nelson, J. Park, D. Collins, and B. Krobusek, 2003,
http://www.amsmeteors.org/mallama/galilean/timings.html
No discrepancies were found between the two data sources.
Citations and links to the supporting data sources have been included in
order to encourage and aid other researchers to replicate this article. If
any researchers wish to obtain the Excel files containing the data and
charts used to produce this article, please email a request to
sbye...@comcast.net. . All reviews, alternate views, and comments are
welcome.
To be continued
ste...@nomail.com
> Greetings, Light Speed Investigators,
<snip>
Which explains Roemer's data. It takes an extra 1003 seconds
for the light from Jupiter to reach Earth when Earth and Jupiter
are the farthest apart.
> It is known that Earth takes about 200 days to make this same trip. The
> When two things race between two points at the same time at differing
> speeds,...they have a relative speed that is equal to the difference between
> the highest and lowest speed. Therefore the average relative speed is
> approximately 300,000 minus 17.361 km/sec.
> Conclusion:...This relative velocity between the retreating Earth and the
> Jupiter/Io light train is not constant at 300,000 km/sec, and therefore
> light does not maintain a constant speed (c), relative to all observers, as
> postulated by Special Relativity.
How do you come to that conclusion? When the Earth is farther
away from Jupiter, the light has to travel a greater distance,
which takes more time. The distance between the Earth and
Jupiter varies, which explains why the time it takes light
to travel from Jupiter to Earth varies. According to special
relativity, light travels at a constant speed of 300,000 km/sec
relative to Jupiter. The distance to Earth from Jupiter varies
by 1003 light seconds. Therefore the time it takes light from
Jupiter to reach Earth varies by 1003 seconds.
Stephen
Bill Hobba
"Stan Byers" <sbye...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:KsydnXxYP7Se_1zY...@comcast.com...
>
>
> Greetings, Light Speed Investigators,
>
> This post is an update for the web article "Light Speed versus Special
> Relativity"
As has been explained time and time again on this forum Special Relativity
is not a theory about light. Modern presentations don't use it as a
postulate. If you have evidence that light speed is not invariant (which
you almost certainly do not have) such would not invalidate special
relativity. It, for example, is perfectly compatible with the Proca
lagrangain which gives light a small mass and it speed is not invariant.
Learn about a subject before criticizing it.
Rest of misconceptions snipped.
Bill
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
THE_ONE
>This relative velocity between the retreating Earth and the
>Jupiter/Io light train is not constant at 300,000 km/sec, and therefore
>light does not maintain a constant speed (c), relative to all observers, as
>postulated by Special Relativity.
> Stan Byers
Note that you said " relative to all observers ".
If you had a very long Train and that Train was at rest on the
tracks,
and a green light turned on just at the front of the Train, the time
that light would take to travel from the front of the Train to rear
end of the train, would depend on the length of the Train.
If the Train was 75,000 km long, then the light would require 0.25 of
a second the complete the trip from front to rear. This means that
if
there were clocks positioned at the front and the rear on the Train,
the readings of these clocks would register a difference of 0.25 of a
second if comparing the time noted that the person a the front of the
Train saw the light, and the time noted when the person at the rear
of
the Train saw the light..
Now if the driver of the Train was a bit backwards, and decided to go
in reverse after seeing the green light turn on, and eventually was
moving backwards at 260,000 km per second, if the light then turns
red
to inform the nut_case that he is going backwards, comparing the time
noted at the front and rear of the train when the red light was seen,
will still indicate that the light takes 0.25 of a second to go from
one end to the other.
So yes, the speed of light coming from the Stop/Go light has not
changed, but the speed of the Train has, and so relatively speaking,
there is a relative difference in the speed of the light related to
the speed of the Train.
However, this will not effect our measurement of the speed of light
passing from one end of the Train to the other. It will still be
measured as ( c ).
The key to testing yourself of whether or not you understand
Relativity, is to determine how this is possible for the speed of the
light to still be measured as ( c ).
One clue is that the two clocks are no longer synchronized, although
those onboard the train will disagree with that.
In short, your measurements instruments used to measure the speed of
light, being the Train and the clocks in the above example, change if
they are in motion across Space.
Therefore it is impossible to detect any change in an observers
velocity relative to the speed of light.
harry
>
> This post is an update for the web article "Light Speed versus Special
> Relativity"
>
> The article is available on the web address:
> http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/litespd_vs_sr.htm
>
> It will be placed here in sections to avoid large posts and allow text and
> link printing.
>
> ABSTRACT Public Domain information: In order to promote the
> widest possible distribution of this Light Speed versus Special Relativity
> article, the content authored by Stanley Byers is granted to be in the
> public domain.
>
> This paper reviews the available speed of light (c) measurements of 1994
> AD that demonstrate speed variations of inter-planetary light as measured
> relative to the motion of:... planets, satellites, the solar system, and
> the Milky Way galaxy.
> The idea that light from a remote source maintains a constant speed (c)
> relative to all observers regardless of their differing speeds and
> directions, as proposed by the theory of Special Relativity,
That's erroneous - the error can be found in some publications, but that
doesn't make it right.
In SRT, the closing speed varies with change of speed (note that a large
part of the replies so far doesn't show an understanding of this). Measured
variations relative to planets is standard; measured variations relative to
solar system and Milky Way sounds like an extraordinary claim to me.
Regards,
Harald
Sue...
Whose field equations did you rely on for those transit times?
Maxwell or Weber ?
Sue...
G. L. Bradford
You used its constancy to try to refute its constancy. Its dependable
space per time, or space to time, constancy is the very basis of observation
itself. It tends to distort through any medium other than a vacuum but even
that observation of "distortion" is based upon its otherwise constancy as c.
'c' is not variable regarding within the local, immediate, frames of
observers (travelers) in motion. If the observer observes himself to be
sitting in front of the same instrument panel in motion as he is when not in
motion, he used the same dependability of the speed of light (c) to make his
dependable observation of that same dependability of instrument panel...and
other immediately dependable surroundings. The same light-time
dependability. The same light-cone dependability. The same internal-integral
distance calculation dependability. So the constancy has internal-manifold
or frame redundancy throughout changes in external relative velocities. In
other words, regardless of changes in external relative velocities.
Regarding the external, even there the dependability of c remains a must
case regarding travelers, in the dependability of light-time-distances and
all change in light-time-distances forward (out of merger with the overall
background light-time-cone of the Universe) and rearward (into mergers with
the overall background light-time-cone of the Universe). The variable
time-'past' orientated titanic hologramic bubble coordinate system the
traveler will travel point to point futuristically in, and be the constant
center-point of, is and will be entirely dependent upon an external
constancy of the speed of light always being dependably c in [that]
particular vacuum.
The traveler might increase his relative velocity to such a degree that he
shrinks entire universes out of sight in the receding horizons behind him,
yet in whatever horizon of universe he will then be in, he will still be
dependent upon the same constancy of light speed in a vacuum, the same
light-time-cone, for all referencing in that new universe he is then in. He
will be dependent upon universal constants constantly [renormalizing] his
local-relative manifold for him. Rather he will be entirely dependent upon
them seamlessly keeping his immediate frame normal vis-a-vis all physics
(including his ability to detect or observe normally, internally and
externally). He will depend upon the consistent integrity (G = c = h-bar = k
= ? = Unity = 1) of the universal constants...and his faith in such
consistent integrity more than likely will not be misplaced.
Relatively sudden massive accelerations or decelerations in velocity,
vis-a-vis the entire local manifold, is another story altogether regarding
what changes, what distortions, there will be in local-relative
observations.
GLB
Stan Byers
Greetings, Speed of Light Investigators,
All Special Relativity Theory Advocates, and readers who may believe that
the theory is a "law" instead of just a "theory",... need to closely review
the following quotes from Einstein's letters to his friends.
Circa 1913 QUOTE: If the velocity of light is only a tiny bit dependent
on the velocity of the light source, then my whole theory of Relativity and
Gravitation is false. UNQUOTE
Circa 1949 QUOTE: Now one may think that I am looking back on my life's
work with serene satisfaction. Viewed more closely however, it is quite
different. There is not a single concept of which I am certain that it will
stand the test of time. I am not sure that the concepts are on the right
track at all. UNQUOTE
Various English translations of these above quotes can be found on the
internet.
The 1913 quote is from a letter Einstein sent to Erwin Finley-Freundlich
dated August 1913.
The 1949 quote is Einstein's response to Maurice Solovine's letter of
congratulations on his 70th birthday.
If the light from the Jupiter Io eclipse events propagated at a constant
speed relative to Earth, there would be no delay in the event timing as the
Earth retreated from Jupiter. The light would appear the same as if it had
originated on Earth.
Since the integration of the delays adds up to Roemer's 1003 total delay, it
is clear that light speed does not remain constant in relation to all
observers, regardless of their relative motion.
From Einstein's above quote, "If the velocity of light is only a tiny bit
dependent on the velocity of the light source, then my whole theory of
Relativity and Gravitation is false"
Roemers 1003 second delay found in 1676 clearly shows that the speed of
light is 100 percent dependent on the speed of the source, and there is no
upper or lower limit to it's relative speed in free space.
Therefore, there is no basis for Einstein's Special or General Theories of
Relativity. There is no other logical answer.
The following is a partial list of ad hoc concepts dependent on and derived
from Einstein's Relativity that collapse with the theories.
Mass causing Warped space,...Curved space causing gravity,...Time warps
(dilation),... Light Speed invariance,... Light's free space Speed limit,...
Lights susceptibility to gravitation,... Equivalence principle for gravity
and inertia,... The Twin's Paradox,... Mass increase with velocity,...
Energy equals mass times light speed squared (E=MC^2),... Inertial Frame
Dragging,... Gravitational Waves,... Unlimited Gravitational Force,...
Black Holes,... Gravitational Force Propagation Limited to the Speed of
Light,...
Material Objects contracting with speed.
If there are hard data points that support any of these above concepts,
science will have to look for another cause,...because SR and GR Relativity
do not exist. Magnetic fields are known to interact and divert light,
gravity has not been shown to interact with light. Other readers may be
able to add to the above list.
THE MECHANICS OF RELATIVE SPEED: It does not take a rocket scientist to
judge a foot race. When school children watch a foot race, they know that
the "relative speed" between the fast runner and the slow runner,...does not
equal the full speed of the fast runner.
Yet according to relativity,...light always passes all observers at it's
full speed,...regardless of how fast the observers are moving toward the
same goal. Of course that statement is counter intuitive to the most casual
observer.
The school children and PhD candidates that acknowledge Roemer's 1003 second
delay, will be challenging any schools and relativity professors to justify
their continued preaching of SR and GR relativity. Einstein's relativity is
shown to be false with Einstein's own logic. It can been seen from
Einstein's above quotes that he was open minded and willing to consider that
Relativity could be false.
There are many who try to prop up a false science that they are long
comfortable with,... by ignoring hard data. However, truth has a way of
coming to the fore,...and revealing past mistakes due to unfounded
assumptions.
The true natural physical characteristics of light's propagation has been
evident since Roemer discovered the 1003 second delay via his 1676 eclipse
records displayed by Jupiter and it's moon Io. If the scientists of 1905
had recognized the importance of Roemer's 229 year old data,... there never
would have been the mistaken concepts of special and general relativity.
Roemer's discovery trumps the past interpretations of MMX experiments,...
and continues to display nature's true light speed characteristics every
day.
For any rebuttals to be considered seriously, they must first show
that Roemers' 1003 second delay of 1676 does not exist today.
Cheers, Stan Byers
harry
>
> Greetings, Speed of Light Investigators,
>
> All Special Relativity Theory Advocates, and readers who may believe that
> the theory is a "law" instead of just a "theory",... need to closely
> review
> the following quotes from Einstein's letters to his friends.
>
> Circa 1913 QUOTE: If the velocity of light is only a tiny bit dependent
> on the velocity of the light source, then my whole theory of Relativity
> and
> Gravitation is false. UNQUOTE
>
> Circa 1949 QUOTE: Now one may think that I am looking back on my life's
> work with serene satisfaction. Viewed more closely however, it is quite
> different. There is not a single concept of which I am certain that it
> will
> stand the test of time. I am not sure that the concepts are on the right
> track at all. UNQUOTE
>
> Various English translations of these above quotes can be found on the
> internet.
> The 1913 quote is from a letter Einstein sent to Erwin Finley-Freundlich
> dated August 1913.
> The 1949 quote is Einstein's response to Maurice Solovine's letter of
> congratulations on his 70th birthday.
>
> If the light from the Jupiter Io eclipse events propagated at a constant
> speed relative to Earth,
Dear Lightspeed investigator,
As I explained, that theory is not SRT.
Cheers,
Harald
Stan Byers
Greetings, Lightspeed Investigators,
Update of the web article "Light Speed versus Special Relativity"
URL http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/litespd_vs_sr.htm
Continuation of 2/1/2007 post.
Approximately 100 years have passed since the theory of Special Relativity
(SR) appeared in 1905. The SR postulate that the velocity of light is
constant in all inertial systems implied the necessity to revise the ideas
of length, time and simultaneity. The data provided here indicates that this
postulate is not compatible with the actual characteristics of light. This
empirical data demonstrates that the speed of emitted light is isotropic and
at c in relation to the source, and the observed light speed will be
modified depending on the relative motion of the observer and the source.
Newton's, Faraday's and Maxwell's concepts of physical systems, length,
time, simultaneity, radiation and energy remain unchanged when the system of
light (EM) transportation is recognized to function as the above data
demonstrates.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Light's Moving Medium via Prime Force Radiation.
In reviewing the data demonstrating that emitted light is isotropic from a
moving source, it becomes necessary to propose a medium that moves with the
source. This requirement eliminates the possibility of a material medium
consisting of ultra mundane particles. The non EM Prime Force background
radiation (Pf) as described in the article "Radiant Pressure Model of Remote
Force" provides the transport medium for inertia and light. EM radiation,
including light, is propagated as a resonance within the non EM Prime Force
radiation (The isotropic E field, Pe).
Our total Solar system has a motion referenced to sidereal space (star
background) due to the rotation with the Milky Way. Due to the different
Solar system orbits speeds of Earth and Jupiter, there will be times when
Jupiter leads Earth and times when Earth leads Jupiter relative to the
direction of our sidereal motion. In spite of our system's Milky Way
sidereal motion,... the light from Jupiter remains at c in relation to
Jupiter. If this were not so we would measure different speeds for light
depending on the line of sight orientation with the Milky Way motion.
Consequently the light emanating from a non accelerating source object is at
c, and isotropic in relation to the source,...regardless of the speed and
direction of the source in relation to other systems. The average published
speed of our solar system in its trip around the Milky Way is 220 km/sec.
This is almost 10 times faster than the Earth's orbital speed (29.79
km/sec) within the solar system.
A second example of this isotropic velocity phenomenon is the Earth Moon
system. Whether the Moon is leading or trailing the Earth in its orbit, the
same velocity of Earth shine light will exist arriving at the Moon. This
fact disputes the intuitive and SR concept that light must travel through a
medium and have a constant speed relative to this medium. It appears that
for light to exist as a phenomenon of a background medium, each planet and
Sun must have a medium that moves with it. This appears like an
impossibility for a material medium,... however it is a reasonable concept
for a Prime Force (Pf) radiation medium with a near infinite frequency
spectrum.
Summary of Light's Characteristics
In summary, this review of available data demonstrates that these
characteristics for light exist when it is acknowledged that the Doppler
effect for light cannot be independent of the Doppler effect for the event
images which are propagated with the light.
**Light speed is isotropic and at c only relative to its non-accelerating
source.
**There is no known speed limit for light relative to space or remote
objects.
These characteristics are in direct opposition to the apparent concept from
Einstein's 1912 manuscript for Special Relativity page 56:
QUOTE: "There exists a coordinate system with respect to which every light
ray propagates in vacuum with the velocity c". UN-QUOTE
This author's interpretation of this statement corresponds with the
interpretation quoted by the
Special Relativity Advocates listed above in this paper, is as follows:
The vacuum is taken to be the "one vacuum" of the complete and "one
uni-verse". This vacuum is also characterized by terms such as Inertial
space, Sidereal space, Fixed Star Field space, and Outer space.
The terms "a coordinate system" is not taken to mean a separate Inertial
frame for each emitting object or observer.
Now according to Einstein's constant c statement:... as light is emitted
from Jupiter it will have a constant speed of c in relation to the vacuum
and all observers, regardless of the sidereal motion of Jupiter or the
relative motion of any observers.
This is obviously an extremely counter intuitive concept, and is the only
concept that this paper "Light Speed versus Special Relativity" was designed
to address.
The Second Version of Special Relativity:
When one searches the web for the term [Special Relativity] it is found that
there are groups and schools that embrace Special Relativity,...but
interpret Einstein's statement to mean that the speed of light in free space
travels at c in relation to it's source. If Einstein's constant c statement
is interpreted in this manner for some versions of SR,...then there is no
reason for the existence of Special Relativity, and there would be no
conflict with the charts of this paper. The Jupiter/Io data and charts
demonstrate that light has a closing speed for an observer ( c' ) that
depends on the relative speed ( v ) between the observer and the source ( c'
= c +or- v ). A quote from a sci.physics.relativity news group discussion
is an example of this second version of special relativity.
This quote is arguing that the Jupiter/Io charts and Roemer's delay do not
dispute Einstein's constant c statement.
QUOTE: SRT does not use relative speed between objects, despite Einstein's
suggestion in his introduction to his 1905 paper. Instead SRT uses speed
of objects relative to inertial reference systems.
Thus, according to SRT, light speed will be measured as c in any chosen
inertial frame; consequently the speed of a light ray relative to objects
that are moving in that frame with velocity v will be determined in that
frame as c-v ("closing speed"). UN-QUOTE
Returning to the English translation of Einstein's 1912 Manuscript on SR we
find a passage on page 66 that disputes the above quote and clarifies
Einstein's meaning concerning the speed of light in the vacuum of space.
QUOTE:
In case I, the velocity of light would depend on the state of motion of the
light source.
Light rays of most diverse propagation velocities would be present at one
and the same location at the same time. The physical properties of light
would not be determined, then, by the frequency alone, since the wavelength
and the frequency would be independent of each other; the light originating
from stars that are moving relative to us would have to be physically
distinguishable from the light originating from light sources at rest.
Experience has yielded nothing of the sort. The most convincing argument
against this point of view, which has been advocated by Ritz, has been put
forward by the Dutch astronomer Pexider.
The individual stars of stellar systems (double stars) must have sent us
light of different velocities during different epochs of their orbits. Thus,
the time of propagation of the light from double stars to us would be
different for different epochs. The temporal sequence of the epochs as
traced by us with the help of the Doppler principle would be different from
that in reality; a simple calculation shows that, indeed, if the underlying
hypothesis were borne out by the facts, the indicated influence would have
to be so considerable that it would have been absolutely impossible for the
astronomers to miss it. The untenability of this conception can surely be
viewed as being definitively proved. UN-QUOTE
The passage of the above quote is essentially stating that the speed of all
starlight through the interstellar space travels at the same speed, c,
towards us, regardless of the speed of the star in relation to earth. This
is clearly refuted by the Jupiter/Io light speed data and charts presented
with this paper.
Advocates of Special Relativity that believe that interstellar light speed
is dependent on the speed of the source (The Second Version of SR) , should
not assume that they have an argument with this paper.
The clear single intent of presenting the Jupiter/Io light speed charts is
to show that these measurements refute the version of Einstein's statement
claiming that interstellar light is independent of the source and the
observers velocity,...and refute Einstein's star light scenario in the above
quote.
The Special Relativity Advocates, listed above and readers who may believe
that the SR concept is a "law" instead of just a "theory",... need to
closely review the following quotes from Einstein's letters to his friends.
Circa 1913 Quote: If the velocity of light is only a tiny bit dependent
on the velocity of the light source, then my whole theory of Relativity and
Gravitation is false. Unquote
Circa 1949 Quote: Now one may think that I am looking back on my life's
work with serene satisfaction. Viewed more closely however, it is quite
different. There is not a single concept of which I am certain that it will
stand the test of time. I am not sure that the concepts are on the right
track at all. Unquote
Various English translations of these above quotes can be found on the
internet.
The 1913 quote is from a letter Einstein sent to Erwin Finley-Freundlich
dated August 1913.
The 1949 quote is Einstein's response to Maurice Solovine's letter of
congratulations on his 70th birthday.
The use of the universally recognized term "Inertial Space" demonstrates
that we already accept the fact that the medium which supports inertial
force is present, regardless of an object's speed or direction in relation
to sidereal space and Newton's inertial space. The medium supporting inertia
is the same medium supporting the isotropic characteristics of light
relative to its source. In this model of physical systems, this medium is
called Prime Force background radiation. A review of this web site's section
on ...Inertia,... may lead to a better understanding of how this model
demonstrates the unity of matter and Prime Force radiation (Pf),... and how
it allows light to exhibit a constant speed in relation to each of its
individual sources. ***
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to Roemer's discovery there are two other examples of EM
radiation demonstrating that it's speed is constant only in relation to the
source,...and is not constant to all observers regardless of their line of
sight velocity relative to the source.
One clear example is provided by a problem with data rates between the
Cassini spacecraft and it's Titan lander Huygens. The fact that Doppler
effects are also utilized between Earth and spacecraft is another sure
indication that EM radiation maintains " c " in relation to the source and
not the observer. When the radio carrier frequency of a spacecraft is known
and a Doppler shift or a change in a Doppler shift of the carrier and data
is observed, how is it possible to assume that the "free space speed of the
EM radiation" did not change in relation to the observer (receiver) ?
The following link from IEEE provides a quote regarding the Cassini /
Huygens problem and the repair required due to the lack of recognizing the
Doppler effects of relative EM radiation speed on the data rate.
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/WEBONLY/publicfeature/oct04/1004titan.html
??? or
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/2001/cassini_010629.html
QUOTE: ESA IMMEDIATELY CONVENED AN INQUIRY BOARD,
with two NASA observers.
One of them was Richard Horttor, who was then JPL's telecommunications
system engineer for the Cassini project. He recalls, "We worked our way out
by being totally candid from top to bottom once we detected the problem.
There was no hesitancy or lack of resources. Nor was there any
'nation-to-nation finger-pointing.' "
The board discovered that Alenia Spazio SpA, the Rome-based company that
built the radio link, had properly anticipated the need to make the receiver
sensitive over a wide enough range of frequencies to detect Huygens's
carrier signal even when Doppler shifted. But it had overlooked another
subtle consequence: Doppler shift would affect not just the frequency of the
carrier wave that the probe's vital observations would be transmitted on but
also the digitally encoded signal itself. In effect, the shift would push
the signal out of synch with the timing scheme used to recover data from the
phase-modulated carrier.
Because of Doppler shift, the frequency at which bits would be arriving from
Huygens would be significantly different from the nominal data rate of 8192
bits per second. As the radio wave from the lander was compressed by Doppler
shift, the data rate would increase as the length of each bit was reduced
UN-QUOTE
In the above quote concerning Nasa's Titan data test it is seen that the
carrier frequency and the digital data frequency displayed a Doppler effect.
If that same transmitter was parked on Jupiter's north pole you would see a
repeat of Roemer's data during Earth's orbital trip. In one case you have a
light train modulated by eclipse events, and in the radio case you have a
radio carrier modulated by digital data.
You cannot separate the speed and timing of the digital data bits from the
speed of the radio carrier.
A second example has been available on the web site of B. G. Wallace using
1969 radar data to establish that light speed is not constant for all
observers. The information is available at:
http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
A detailed description of the Doppler effect is available on the web at the
URL
http://www.ed.mtu.edu/ED3100/fall04/klwarsin/TheDopplerEffectWhatCausesIt.html
The frequency and period of Io's eclipse events displays the Doppler effect
in direct proportion to the relative motion between the Earth and Jupiter,
therefore the light train speed relative to Earth changes at the same rate.
http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/IoAppro.gif
http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/jupiter2.gif
http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/IoEcipChange4.gif
http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/grav11.htm
http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/CreatMomtm.htm#VariableSpeedLight
http://www.ed.mtu.edu/ED3100/fall04/klwarsin/TheDopplerEffectWhatCausesIt.html
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/9680.html
http://books.nap.edu/html/gravitational_physics/
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=77441
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html
http://www.slac.stanford.edu
http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/relativity.html
http://www.eso.org/outreach/spec-prog/aol/market/experiments/advanced/skills302.html
http://www.amsmeteors.org/mallama/galilean/timings.html
Radiant Pressure Model of Remote Force
http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/grav11.htm
http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/ForceInteract.htm#InertiaRevised
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/2001/cassini_010629.html
http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
The list of Relativity Advocates quoted in this article are
obviously advocating the "original" versions of SR and GR
Relativity.
Other "non original" versions which some people continue to
label Einstein's SR and GR Relativity,...are not intended to be
addressed by this article on this thread.
Such modified theories that claim to be related to Einstein's
Relativity Theories need to select a new name. Einstein's
Theories of Relativity were still born and
therefore have no descendants.
Rebuttals that do not show that Roemers 1003 second does not
exist, are not addressing the goal of this Light Speed article.
Comments, rebuttals and red ink are welcome.
Cheers, Stan Byers
510 651 0368
Fremont, California
USA, Planet Earth
sbye...@comcast.net
sbye...@ix.netcom.com
http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11
shuba
> Greetings, Lightspeed Investigators,
Greetings, spamming crossposter!
> Rebuttals that do not show that Roemers 1003 second does not
> exist, are not addressing the goal of this Light Speed article.
What goal is that? Your complete failure to understand basic
solar system dynamics has nothing to do with measurements made in
the seventeenth century, nor measurements made at any other time,
for that matter.
---Tim Shuba---
Henri Wilson
wrote:
So you agree that the simulation of observed variable star brightness curves
using BaTh principles is also valid?
Maybe that's why they are so easy to match.
Light moves at c wrt its source and c+v wrt an observer.
>Regards,
>Harald
>
Sam Wormley
>
> Light moves at c wrt its source and c+v wrt an observer.
>
That's not what is observed in nature, Henri.
Bryan Olson
Henri prefers how things work in his own Windows programs to
how they work in nature.
--
--Bryan
Phineas T Puddleduck
Sam Wormley <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Perhaps Henri is admitting he is unnatural?
--
Saucerheads - denying the blatantly obvious since 2000.
Henri Wilson
Well, you morons can't have it both ways.
Either light move at other than c wrt another object, as Harald says, or it
doesn't.
Who is right?
Sam Wormley
> Either light move at other than c wrt another object, as Harald says,
> or it doesn't.
> Who is right?
>
"Light moving c+v wrt an observer" is not observed in nature.
The Ghost In The Machine
<swor...@mchsi.com>
wrote
on Sat, 03 Feb 2007 14:30:26 GMT
<601xh.1170442$084.593711@attbi_s22>:
And were it the case that c'=c+v as Newton or H-Aether dictates,
diffraction gratings would show no shifts at all. :-)
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Useless C++ Programming Idea #992381111:
while(bit&BITMASK) ;
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Henri Wilson
...that shoud read " has not yet been observed in nature for the bloody obvious
reason that the means have never been available to perform the required OW
light speed comparison experiment".
Hence Einsteiniana has remained till today and is still stuffing up physics and
astronomy.
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote
in message news:231f94-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
...
> And were it the case that c'=c+v as Newton
> or H-Aether dictates, diffraction gratings would
> show no shifts at all. :-)
Strangely enough, diffraction effects are independent of "wave
speed".
David A. Smith
Sam Wormley
Still: Light moving c+v wrt an observer" is not observed in nature. Nor
is it predicted!
The Ghost In The Machine
<dl...@aol.com>
wrote
on Sat, 3 Feb 2007 15:47:02 -0700
<Gh8xh.19606$B_.1...@newsfe06.phx>:
And the Galilean transformation predicts that the waves of
a light source with a certain wavelength would be observed
by any observer, moving or no, to have that same length, but
a different speed.
Hence my statement.
Mathematically:
x_A = x_O-vt_O
t_A = t_O
or
x_O = x_A+vt_A
t_O = t_A
therefore one gets the following events.
(0,0)_O = (0,0)_A
(0,L/c)_O @ c = (-vL/c,L/c)_A @ c-v
= (0,L/c + vL/(c(c-v))_A
= (0,(c-v)L/(c(c-v)) + vL/(c(c-v))_A
= (0,L/(c-v) )_A
Since velocity * time = length, and the velocity is c-v
and the time L/(c-v), the wavelength is L as measured by A,
identical to the wavelength L as produced by O.
Therefore diffraction gratings in a Newtonian universe would
be of more limited usefulness than they are now.
>
> David A. Smith
>
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Windows. Because it's not a question of if.
It's a question of when.
Henri Wilson
Rubbish.
It is responsible for the brightness curves of many so called
'variable stars'.
Henri Wilson
<ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
>In sci.physics.relativity, Sam Wormley
><swor...@mchsi.com>
> wrote
>on Sat, 03 Feb 2007 14:30:26 GMT
><601xh.1170442$084.593711@attbi_s22>:
>> Henri Wilson wrote:
>>
>>> Either light move at other than c wrt another object, as Harald says,
>>> or it doesn't.
>>> Who is right?
>>>
>>
>> "Light moving c+v wrt an observer" is not observed in nature.
>
>And were it the case that c'=c+v as Newton or H-Aether dictates,
>diffraction gratings would show no shifts at all. :-)
I have pointed out why this argument is plainly wrong Ghost.
Consider a line of equally spaced cars all driving at 100 kms/hr. What happens
to their spacing when they all slow down in a 60 zone?
Even YOU should be able to work that out Ghost.
The same happens to light....and a record of the source speed relative to the
observer is still maintained as doppler shift, measurable with a grating.
Henri Wilson
wrote:
See, Ghost, I told you so.
...and Smithy appears to support my theory.
>David A. Smith
>
Henri Wilson
This is not the same problem. Your argument applies to an observer who moves
relative to a light source...in which case the absolute distance between light
wavecrests remains the same and a grating should NOT detect doppler.
My argument relates to light that changes speed as it goes. ...just like the
line of cars.
I also argue there is a local EM reference frame around the Earth that causes
incoming light to change speed from essentially 'c wrt its source' to something
approaching 'c wrt Earth'. As that happens, the absolute wavelength also
changes....and an Earth grating will still be accurately sensitive to source
doppler.
But for most of the trip, the light travels at c wrt its source, +/- extinction
effects....
When it approaches the local EM frame of our solar system, Earth in particular,
it changes speed to the equilibrium one in our frame.
How's that for a theory Ghost?
>> David A. Smith
Sam Wormley
>
> But for most of the trip, the light travels at c wrt its source, +/- extinction
> effects....
>
That's not what is measured, Henri!
Sam Wormley
No--variable stars are either eclipsing binaries or pulsating
stars... with brightness proportional to surface area to first
order in the latter.
scien...@sify.com
> "Stan Byers" <sbyer...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >http://www.nap.edu/catalog/9680.html
> >http://books.nap.edu/html/gravitational_physics/
> >http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=77441
> >http://www.slac.stanford.edu
> >http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/relativity.html
> >http://www.eso.org/outreach/spec-prog/aol/market/experiments/advanced...
> >http://www.amsmeteors.org/mallama/galilean/timings.html
> > Radiant Pressure Model of Remote Force
> >http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/grav11.htm
> >http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/ForceInteract.htm#InertiaRevised
> >http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/2001/cassini_010629.html
> >http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
>
> > To be continued. Comments and rebuttals are welcome.
>
> > Stan Byers
>
> You used its constancy to try to refute its constancy. Its dependable
> space per time, or space to time, constancy is the very basis of observation
> itself. It tends to distort through any medium other than a vacuum but even
> that observation of "distortion" is based upon its otherwise constancy as c.
>
> 'c' is not variable regarding within the local, immediate, frames of
> observers (travelers) in motion. If the observer observes himself to be
> sitting in front of the same instrument panel in motion as he is when not in
> motion, he used the same dependability of the speed of light (c) to make his
> dependable observation of that same dependability of instrument panel...and
> other immediately dependable surroundings. The same light-time
> dependability. The same light-cone dependability. The
>
>
> - Show quoted text -...
If the speed of light is confirmed LESS or
MORE than c ( in magnitude) then what
about E=mc2.
The energy will be measured less or more than
E=mc2 , as given by Einstein.
AJAY SHARMA
www.ajayonline.us
karand...@yahoo.com
wrote:
.
>
> If the speed of light is confirmed LESS or
> MORE than c ( in magnitude) then what
> about E=mc2.
> The energy will be measured less or more than
> E=mc2 , as given by Einstein.
>
> AJAY SHARMAwww.ajayonline.us
No, cretin.
E is still going to be mc^2.
So, now fuck the hell off.
Henri Wilson
It has never been measured... so how would you know Wormy?
Henri Wilson
Some of them are. Most are just manifestations of fast light catching slow
light as it travels to us.
Sam Wormley
Don't be so silly Henri... the speed of light has been measured.
Sam Wormley
Give us the RA and Dec of one of the example you are referring to, Henri.
Bryan Olson
Of course it has been measured. That's why you had to put
that special tweak in your theory -- that light close to Earth
somehow changes speed, and that's why the measurements come
out as Einstein predicted.
How many tweeks does it take to explain why light from
binary stars seems to conform to Einstein's theory and not
to yours?
--
--Bryan
Henri Wilson
I don't need to. I just simulatate their light curves, using c+v.
Henri Wilson
Listen 'Bryan fucking Olsen', alias fucking geesey, alias, Draper, alias
Andersen. alias fucking Wormy, alias the rest of the dickheads here, OWLS has
never been fucking measured.
Ask your hero Roberts.
What HAS been measured and shown to be VERY constant is TWLS...and as the BaTh
shows.....IT SHOULD BE FUCKING COINSTANT.
THE_ONE
http://www.outersecrets.com/real/forum_againstum.htm
Check the above web page for a quick reasoning.
THE_ONE
harry
"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
news:m9d7s2te86517cume...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 10:14:17 +0100, "harry"
> <harald.vanlin...@epfl.ch>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Stan Byers" <sbye...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>news:KsydnXxYP7Se_1zY...@comcast.com...
>>>
>>>
>>> Greetings, Light Speed Investigators,
>>>
>>> This post is an update for the web article "Light Speed versus Special
>>> Relativity"
>>>
>>> The article is available on the web address:
>>> http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/litespd_vs_sr.htm
>>>
>>> It will be placed here in sections to avoid large posts and allow text
>>> and
>>> link printing.
>>>
>>> ABSTRACT Public Domain information: In order to promote the
>>> widest possible distribution of this Light Speed versus Special
>>> Relativity
>>> article, the content authored by Stanley Byers is granted to be in the
>>> public domain.
>>>
>>> This paper reviews the available speed of light (c) measurements of 1994
>>> AD that demonstrate speed variations of inter-planetary light as
>>> measured
>>> relative to the motion of:... planets, satellites, the solar system, and
>>> the Milky Way galaxy.
>>> The idea that light from a remote source maintains a constant speed (c)
>>> relative to all observers regardless of their differing speeds and
>>> directions, as proposed by the theory of Special Relativity,
>>
>>doesn't make it right.
>>In SRT, the closing speed varies with change of speed (note that a large
>>part of the replies so far doesn't show an understanding of this).
>>Measured
>>variations relative to planets is standard; measured variations relative
>>to
>>solar system and Milky Way sounds like an extraordinary claim to me.
>
> So you agree that the simulation of observed variable star brightness
> curves
> using BaTh principles is also valid?
I commented on a misconception of SRT; I don't use BaTh.
> Maybe that's why they are so easy to match.
>
> Light moves at c wrt its source and c+v wrt an observer.
Henry, that's in disagreement with SRT - light propagation is independent of
both emitter AND receiver.
Harald
Phineas T Puddleduck
"THE_ONE" <flop...@idirect.com> wrote:
Its nonsense. Not so much the one, more like 0.001
THE_ONE
<phineaspuddled...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> In article <1170671410.905431.64...@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
>
> "THE_ONE" <flopp...@idirect.com> wrote:
> > Guys guys guys, why not just put the facts together.
>
> >http://www.outersecrets.com/real/forum_againstum.htm
>
> > Check the above web page for a quick reasoning.
>
> > THE_ONE
>
> Its nonsense. Not so much the one, more like 0.001
If so, then what is it about that which I have presented that is "
nonsense ", since it does produce the equations identical to...
1) The Lorentz-Fitgerald Contraction Equation.
2) The Time Dilation Equation.
3) The Lorentz Transformation Equations.
Are you saying that any theory that produced these equations is a pile
of crap, and if so why are these equations being used today ?
Where is your LOGIC ?
THE_ONE
PD
> On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 03:17:15 GMT, Bryan Olson <fakeaddr...@nowhere.org> wrote:
> >Sam Wormley wrote:
> >> Henri Wilson wrote:
>
> >>> Light moves at c wrt its source and c+v wrt an observer.
>
>
> >Henri prefers how things work in his own Windows programs to
> >how they work in nature.
>
> Well, you morons can't have it both ways.
>
> Either light move at other than c wrt another object, as Harald says, or it
> doesn't.
> Who is right?
No, the statement is poorly posed, Henri.
It is also incorrect to say "Mammals give live birth to their young,"
since holding up an echidna will reveal the error of that statement.
However, this does not imply that "No mammal gives live birth to its
young," since your pet sheep will reveal the error of that statement
as well.
PD