Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
DOPPLER EFFECT (MOVING OBSERVER): VARYING OR CONSTANT WAVELENGTH?
148 views
Skip to first unread message
Pentcho Valev
Oct 4, 2012, 4:04:32 AM10/4/12
to
On Monday, October 1, 2012, Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
> Wavelength is not an intrinsic property of light, so it cannot be
>
> discussed independent of how it is measured. But it is clear that in vacuum the
>
> light ray itself is unchanged as it propagates.
>
>
>
> Differently moving observers will measure different wavelengths for a given
>
> light ray, because their MEASURING INSTRUMENTS are oriented differently in
>
> spacetime, and such a measurement inherently PROJECTS the light ray onto the
>
> measuring instrument.
Honest Roberts,
Do you mean that the orientation of the MEASURING INSTRUMENT varies with the speed of the observer? This orientation remains unchanged so long as the speed of the observer remains constant?
Yes or no, Honest Roberts?
Pentcho Valev
> Wavelength is not an intrinsic property of light, so it cannot be
>
> discussed independent of how it is measured. But it is clear that in vacuum the
>
> light ray itself is unchanged as it propagates.
>
>
>
> Differently moving observers will measure different wavelengths for a given
>
> light ray, because their MEASURING INSTRUMENTS are oriented differently in
>
> spacetime, and such a measurement inherently PROJECTS the light ray onto the
>
> measuring instrument.
Honest Roberts,
Do you mean that the orientation of the MEASURING INSTRUMENT varies with the speed of the observer? This orientation remains unchanged so long as the speed of the observer remains constant?
Yes or no, Honest Roberts?
Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
Oct 4, 2012, 4:04:57 PM10/4/12
to
Stephen Hawking contradicts Tom Roberts: Wavelength is an INTRINSIC property - it can already be changed before the interaction with the observer:
http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-Stephen-Hawking/dp/0553380168
Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 3: "...we must first understand the Doppler effect. As we have seen, visible light consists of fluctuations, or waves, in the electromagnetic field. The wavelength (or distance from one wave crest to the next) of light is extremely small, ranging from four to seven ten-millionths of a meter. The different wavelengths of light are what the human eye sees as different colors, with the longest wavelengths appearing at the red end of the spectrum and the shortest wavelengths at the blue end. Now imagine a source of light at a constant distance from us, such as a star, emitting waves of light at a constant wavelength. Obviously the wavelength of the waves we receive will be the same as the wavelength at which they are emitted (the gravitational field of the galaxy will not be large enough to have a significant effect). Suppose now that the source starts moving toward us. When the source emits the next wave crest it will be nearer to us, so the distance between wave crests will be smaller than when the star was stationary. This means that the wavelength of the waves we receive is shorter than when the star was stationary. Correspondingly, if the source is moving away from us, the wavelength of the waves we receive will be longer. In the case of light, therefore, means that stars moving away from us will have their spectra shifted toward the red end of the spectrum (red-shifted) and those moving toward us will have their spectra blue-shifted."
Pentcho Valev
http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-Stephen-Hawking/dp/0553380168
Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 3: "...we must first understand the Doppler effect. As we have seen, visible light consists of fluctuations, or waves, in the electromagnetic field. The wavelength (or distance from one wave crest to the next) of light is extremely small, ranging from four to seven ten-millionths of a meter. The different wavelengths of light are what the human eye sees as different colors, with the longest wavelengths appearing at the red end of the spectrum and the shortest wavelengths at the blue end. Now imagine a source of light at a constant distance from us, such as a star, emitting waves of light at a constant wavelength. Obviously the wavelength of the waves we receive will be the same as the wavelength at which they are emitted (the gravitational field of the galaxy will not be large enough to have a significant effect). Suppose now that the source starts moving toward us. When the source emits the next wave crest it will be nearer to us, so the distance between wave crests will be smaller than when the star was stationary. This means that the wavelength of the waves we receive is shorter than when the star was stationary. Correspondingly, if the source is moving away from us, the wavelength of the waves we receive will be longer. In the case of light, therefore, means that stars moving away from us will have their spectra shifted toward the red end of the spectrum (red-shifted) and those moving toward us will have their spectra blue-shifted."
Pentcho Valev
Big Dog
Oct 4, 2012, 5:41:45 PM10/4/12
to
On 10/4/2012 3:04 PM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Stephen Hawking contradicts Tom Roberts: Wavelength is an INTRINSIC property - it can already
> be changed before the interaction with the observer:
>
You cannot read, Pentcho.
> Stephen Hawking contradicts Tom Roberts: Wavelength is an INTRINSIC property - it can already
> be changed before the interaction with the observer:
>
Hawking did not in any way say that wavelength is intrinsic, and I defy
you to explain how you drew the conclusion from what he said that it is
intrinsic.
In fact, if you read it again, you will see that he said just the opposite.
Pete Weber
Oct 4, 2012, 6:29:06 PM10/4/12
to
Big Dog
Oct 4, 2012, 6:50:51 PM10/4/12
to
xxein
Oct 4, 2012, 8:22:56 PM10/4/12
to
Constant distance:constant wavelength. Both moving along the same
line or not moving. Unfortunately, in a 'vacant space' without a
reference, we cannot discern such movement if it existed. Maybe that
can be called an intrinsic wavelength. But we cannot directly measure
a wavelength. We infer it from measured frequency (passing crest to
crest in time) and the assumption that the speed of light is a
constant.
xxein
shuba
Oct 4, 2012, 9:22:08 PM10/4/12
to
A crank wrote:
> But we cannot directly measure a wavelength. We infer it from
> measured frequency (passing crest to crest in time) and the
> assumption that the speed of light is a constant.
>
> xxein
This will come as quite a revelation to, among others, the hundreds
> But we cannot directly measure a wavelength. We infer it from
> measured frequency (passing crest to crest in time) and the
> assumption that the speed of light is a constant.
>
> xxein
of undergraduates each year who measure laser light wavelength in
the lab without measuring its frequency at all.
---Tim Shuba---
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Oct 4, 2012, 9:38:32 PM10/4/12
to
A miserable stupid cunt wrote in message
news:k33rcs$sv2$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
blah blah splutter babble
---Tim Shuba---
blah blah splutter babble
---Tim Shuba---
Pete Weber
Oct 5, 2012, 8:33:45 AM10/5/12
to
remains unchanged along lights journey through empty space
Pete Weber
Oct 5, 2012, 8:46:27 AM10/5/12
to
> Constant distance:constant wavelength. Both moving along the same line
> or not moving. Unfortunately, in a 'vacant space' without a reference,
> we cannot discern such movement if it existed. Maybe that can be called
> an intrinsic wavelength. But we cannot directly measure a wavelength.
> We infer it from measured frequency (passing crest to crest in time) and
> the assumption that the speed of light is a constant.
>
> xxein
Big Dog
Oct 5, 2012, 9:08:40 AM10/5/12
to
On 10/5/2012 7:33 AM, Pete Weber wrote:
>
> He says exactly you are wrong, and that the wavelength
> remains unchanged along lights journey through empty space
He says that in the case where the source is not moving relative to us.
>
> He says exactly you are wrong, and that the wavelength
> remains unchanged along lights journey through empty space
What does he say when the source IS moving relative to us? Can't read?
Tom Roberts
Oct 5, 2012, 9:09:09 AM10/5/12
to
On 10/4/12 10/4/12 7:22 PM, xxein wrote:
> But we cannot directly measure
> a wavelength.
This is just plain false. For well over a century astronomers have used
> But we cannot directly measure
> a wavelength.
diffraction gratings to directly measure wavelength.
> We infer it from measured frequency (passing crest to
> crest in time) and the assumption that the speed of light is a
> constant.
possible to measure the frequency of a light ray. Of course we have been able to
do that for radio waves for nearly a century.
Tom Roberts
Tom Roberts
Oct 5, 2012, 9:18:41 AM10/5/12
to
On 10/5/12 10/5/12 8:08 AM, Big Dog wrote:
> On 10/5/2012 7:33 AM, Pete Weber wrote:
>> [about a quote from Hawking]
> On 10/5/2012 7:33 AM, Pete Weber wrote:
>> He says exactly you are wrong, and that the wavelength
>> remains unchanged along lights journey through empty space
>
> He says that in the case where the source is not moving relative to us.
No, he does not say that. He says "the wavelength of the
>> remains unchanged along lights journey through empty space
>
> He says that in the case where the source is not moving relative to us.
waves we receive will be the same as the wavelength at which they are
emitted". He does NOT say the wavelength "remains unchanged along lights
journey" (or anything close to that). He is clearly discussing our MEASUREMENT
of the light's wavelength, and not any sort of "intrinsic wavelength of the
light". Because, of course, light does not have an intrinsic wavelength;
wavelength is a RELATIONSHIP between the light ray and a measuring instrument.
This is quite obvious in relativity. Hawking clearly understand it, but all too
many people around here do not.
Tom Roberts
hanis...@gmail.com
Oct 5, 2012, 9:41:52 AM10/5/12
to
Depends on the medium too :-)
Big Dog
Oct 5, 2012, 10:15:49 AM10/5/12
to
On 10/5/2012 8:18 AM, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 10/5/12 10/5/12 8:08 AM, Big Dog wrote:
>> On 10/5/2012 7:33 AM, Pete Weber wrote:
>>> [about a quote from Hawking]
>>> He says exactly you are wrong, and that the wavelength
>>> remains unchanged along lights journey through empty space
>>
>> He says that in the case where the source is not moving relative to us.
>
> No, he does not say that. He says "the wavelength of the
> waves we receive will be the same as the wavelength at which they are
> emitted".
He also says "This means that the wavelength of the waves we receive is
> On 10/5/12 10/5/12 8:08 AM, Big Dog wrote:
>> On 10/5/2012 7:33 AM, Pete Weber wrote:
>>> [about a quote from Hawking]
>>> He says exactly you are wrong, and that the wavelength
>>> remains unchanged along lights journey through empty space
>>
>> He says that in the case where the source is not moving relative to us.
>
> No, he does not say that. He says "the wavelength of the
> waves we receive will be the same as the wavelength at which they are
> emitted".
shorter than when the star was stationary. Correspondingly, if the
source is moving away from us, the wavelength of the waves we receive
will be longer."
There is no distinction between any imagined "actual" wavelength and the
measured wavelength in this statement. If you are making a contextual
distinction between THE wavelength and THE MEASUREMENT OF THE
wavelength, then it is best not to project that distinction onto
Hawking's writing. Granted, Hawking is writing here a book aimed at
laypeople with nothing more than a high school background in physics,
and so he is deliberately not being very precise in his language. But
this is precisely why one shouldn't use writings in this category for
reference, because one can easily interpret its statements without
constraint and without justification.
Pete Weber
Oct 5, 2012, 10:22:29 AM10/5/12
to
he says that the wavelength would _measures_ doppler shifted
for an observer _in motion_ wrt an emitter
this only is right if the wavelength travels unshifted and
_measures_ unshifted for a stationary observer wrt a source
"Obviously the wavelength of the waves we receive will
be the same as the wavelength at which they are emitted"
>
>
> Tom Roberts
>
>
thanks, please recap
Pete Weber
Oct 5, 2012, 10:29:00 AM10/5/12
to
the _measured_shift for a moving only is true iff the wavelength
travels unshifted and _measures_ unshifted for a stationary wrt
a source
Pete Weber
Oct 5, 2012, 10:39:46 AM10/5/12
to
On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 09:15:49 -0500, Big Dog wrote:
> On 10/5/2012 8:18 AM, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 10/5/12 10/5/12 8:08 AM, Big Dog wrote:
>>> On 10/5/2012 7:33 AM, Pete Weber wrote:
>>>> [about a quote from Hawking]
>>>> He says exactly you are wrong, and that the wavelength remains
>>>> unchanged along lights journey through empty space
>>>
>>> He says that in the case where the source is not moving relative to
>>> us.
>>
>> No, he does not say that. He says "the wavelength of the waves we
>> receive will be the same as the wavelength at which they are emitted".
>
> He also says "This means that the wavelength of the waves we receive is
> shorter than when the star was stationary. Correspondingly, if the
> source is moving away from us, the wavelength of the waves we receive
> will be longer."
>
> There is no distinction between any imagined "actual" wavelength and the
> measured wavelength in this statement. If you are making a contextual
> distinction between THE wavelength and THE MEASUREMENT OF THE
> wavelength,
sure it is, and is not imagined, wavelengths are real
> On 10/5/2012 8:18 AM, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 10/5/12 10/5/12 8:08 AM, Big Dog wrote:
>>> On 10/5/2012 7:33 AM, Pete Weber wrote:
>>>> [about a quote from Hawking]
>>>> He says exactly you are wrong, and that the wavelength remains
>>>> unchanged along lights journey through empty space
>>>
>>> He says that in the case where the source is not moving relative to
>>> us.
>>
>> No, he does not say that. He says "the wavelength of the waves we
>> receive will be the same as the wavelength at which they are emitted".
>
> He also says "This means that the wavelength of the waves we receive is
> shorter than when the star was stationary. Correspondingly, if the
> source is moving away from us, the wavelength of the waves we receive
> will be longer."
>
> There is no distinction between any imagined "actual" wavelength and the
> measured wavelength in this statement. If you are making a contextual
> distinction between THE wavelength and THE MEASUREMENT OF THE
> wavelength,
you cant have a travelling unreal imaginary wavelength!
> then it is best not to project that distinction onto
> Hawking's writing. Granted, Hawking is writing here a book aimed at
> laypeople with nothing more than a high school background in physics,
> and so he is deliberately not being very precise in his language. But
> this is precisely why one shouldn't use writings in this category for
> reference,
> because one can easily interpret its statements without
> constraint and without justification.
kenseto
Oct 5, 2012, 11:27:14 AM10/5/12
to
On Thursday, October 4, 2012 5:41:41 PM UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
> On 10/4/2012 3:04 PM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> > Stephen Hawking contradicts Tom Roberts: Wavelength is an INTRINSIC property - it can already
>
> > be changed before the interaction with the observer:
>
> >
>
>
>
> You cannot read, Pentcho.
>
> Hawking did not in any way say that wavelength is intrinsic, and I defy
>
> you to explain how you drew the conclusion from what he said that it is
>
> intrinsic.
Wavelength of sodium source is intrinsic 589 nm in all frames.
> On 10/4/2012 3:04 PM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> > Stephen Hawking contradicts Tom Roberts: Wavelength is an INTRINSIC property - it can already
>
> > be changed before the interaction with the observer:
>
> >
>
>
>
> You cannot read, Pentcho.
>
> Hawking did not in any way say that wavelength is intrinsic, and I defy
>
> you to explain how you drew the conclusion from what he said that it is
>
> intrinsic.
Incoming soidum light from a moving sodium source becomes a new
light source in the observer's frame and the observer's grating defines
a new wavelength for this new light source. This means that the
speed of incoming sodium light is source/observer dependent.
kenseto
Oct 5, 2012, 11:29:37 AM10/5/12
to
On Friday, October 5, 2012 9:18:41 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 10/5/12 10/5/12 8:08 AM, Big Dog wrote:
>
> > On 10/5/2012 7:33 AM, Pete Weber wrote:
>
> >> [about a quote from Hawking]
>
> >> He says exactly you are wrong, and that the wavelength
>
> >> remains unchanged along lights journey through empty space
>
> >
>
> > He says that in the case where the source is not moving relative to us.
>
>
>
> No, he does not say that. He says "the wavelength of the
>
> waves we receive will be the same as the wavelength at which they are
>
> emitted". He does NOT say the wavelength "remains unchanged along lights
>
> journey" (or anything close to that). He is clearly discussing our MEASUREMENT
>
> of the light's wavelength, and not any sort of "intrinsic wavelength of the
>
> light". Because, of course, light does not have an intrinsic wavelength;
>
> wavelength is a RELATIONSHIP between the light ray and a measuring instrument.
Wavelength of any sodium source is intrinsic 589 nm in all frames.
> On 10/5/12 10/5/12 8:08 AM, Big Dog wrote:
>
> > On 10/5/2012 7:33 AM, Pete Weber wrote:
>
> >> [about a quote from Hawking]
>
> >> He says exactly you are wrong, and that the wavelength
>
> >> remains unchanged along lights journey through empty space
>
> >
>
> > He says that in the case where the source is not moving relative to us.
>
>
>
> No, he does not say that. He says "the wavelength of the
>
> waves we receive will be the same as the wavelength at which they are
>
> emitted". He does NOT say the wavelength "remains unchanged along lights
>
> journey" (or anything close to that). He is clearly discussing our MEASUREMENT
>
> of the light's wavelength, and not any sort of "intrinsic wavelength of the
>
> light". Because, of course, light does not have an intrinsic wavelength;
>
> wavelength is a RELATIONSHIP between the light ray and a measuring instrument.
Incoming soidum light from a moving sodium source becomes a new
light source in the observer's frame and the observer's grating defines
a new wavelength for this new light source. This means that the
speed of incoming sodium light is source/observer dependent.
>
>
>
light source in the observer's frame and the observer's grating defines
a new wavelength for this new light source. This means that the
speed of incoming sodium light is source/observer dependent.
>
>
>
Big Dog
Oct 5, 2012, 11:35:21 AM10/5/12
to
On 10/5/2012 10:27 AM, kenseto wrote:
> Wavelength of sodium source is intrinsic 589 nm in all frames.
That's either a lie, or it uses your own meanings of words already in use.
> Wavelength of sodium source is intrinsic 589 nm in all frames.
Tom Roberts
Oct 7, 2012, 11:53:49 AM10/7/12
to
On 10/5/12 10/5/12 9:15 AM, Big Dog wrote:
> On 10/5/2012 8:18 AM, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 10/5/12 10/5/12 8:08 AM, Big Dog wrote:
>>> On 10/5/2012 7:33 AM, Pete Weber wrote:
>>>> [about a quote from Hawking]
>>>> He says exactly you are wrong, and that the wavelength
>>>> remains unchanged along lights journey through empty space
>>>
>>> He says that in the case where the source is not moving relative to us.
>>
>> No, he does not say that. He says "the wavelength of the
>> waves we receive will be the same as the wavelength at which they are
>> emitted".
>
> He also says "This means that the wavelength of the waves we receive is shorter
> than when the star was stationary. Correspondingly, if the source is moving away
> from us, the wavelength of the waves we receive will be longer."
>
> There is no distinction between any imagined "actual" wavelength and the
> measured wavelength in this statement.
"the wavelength AT WHICH THEY ARE EMITTED" [emphasis mine]. That's why I said
'He is clearly discussing our MEASUREMENT of the light's wavelength, and not any
sort of "intrinsic wavelength of the light".'
While I agree that books written for general audiences are not good reference
material, in this particular case Hawking is being rather precise -- he makes no
mention of wavelength "possessed by the light", but only of wavelength AS
RECEIVED and AS EMITTED. This is an appropriate distinction, because in modern
physics, light does not have an intrinsic wavelength, but measurements of
wavelength obtain definite values.
For a massive (timelike) object, its proper length is an
intrinsic property. There is no analogous quantity for light.
Stated geometrically: the displacement 4-vector between an
object's front and back is spacelike, and its norm is the
object's proper length. For a light wave, the displacement
4-vector between successive wavecrests is null, so its norm
is not useful as a measurement. But any observer can make a
measurement of these lengths by projecting those displacement
4-vectors onto a length-measuring instrument.
Tom Roberts
Pentcho Valev
Oct 7, 2012, 12:35:39 PM10/7/12
to
Honest Roberts,
You carefully avoid the question in my original message:
Do you mean that the orientation of the MEASURING INSTRUMENT varies with the speed of the observer? This orientation remains unchanged so long as the speed of the observer remains constant?
Yes or no, Honest Roberts?
Pentcho Valev
You carefully avoid the question in my original message:
Do you mean that the orientation of the MEASURING INSTRUMENT varies with the speed of the observer? This orientation remains unchanged so long as the speed of the observer remains constant?
Yes or no, Honest Roberts?
Pentcho Valev
kenseto
Oct 7, 2012, 5:38:45 PM10/7/12
to
Tom Roberts
Oct 7, 2012, 7:14:09 PM10/7/12
to
On 10/7/12 10/7/12 11:35 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Do you mean that the orientation of the MEASURING INSTRUMENT varies with the
> speed of the observer? This orientation remains unchanged so long as the
> speed of the observer remains constant?
The way your question is phrased implicitly assumes some sort of "absolute
> Do you mean that the orientation of the MEASURING INSTRUMENT varies with the
> speed of the observer? This orientation remains unchanged so long as the
> speed of the observer remains constant?
speed". But there is no such thing in relativity.
Differently moving observers' instruments are oriented differently in spacetime.
In Minkowski spacetime, the orientation of a clock remains unchanged as long as
its 4-velocity remains unchanged (i.e. it is moving inertially). But in other
manifolds this need not hold (though it's not clear the relevant concepts have
meaning). For rulers, non-rotation must be added.
> Yes or no, Honest Roberts?
Tom Roberts
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Oct 7, 2012, 7:35:01 PM10/7/12
to
"Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:zc2dnRkv0rx...@giganews.com...
On
10/7/12 10/7/12 11:35 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Do you mean that the orientation of the MEASURING INSTRUMENT varies with the
> speed of the observer? This orientation remains unchanged so long as the
> speed of the observer remains constant?
The way your question is phrased implicitly assumes some sort of "absolute
speed". But there is no such thing in relativity.
> Do you mean that the orientation of the MEASURING INSTRUMENT varies with the
> speed of the observer? This orientation remains unchanged so long as the
> speed of the observer remains constant?
The way your question is phrased implicitly assumes some sort of "absolute
speed". But there is no such thing in relativity.
==================================================================
The
way your answer is phrased clearly denies the absolute speed of light
is
c
in all inertial frames of reference, which it is in relativity, but there is no
such
thing
in
Newtonian Mechanics, you squirming lying
arsehole.
You
really are a lying pile of ignorant dogshit, Roberts.
--
This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
xxein
Oct 7, 2012, 9:36:16 PM10/7/12
to
a wavelength of light, I have something for you.
An emitter and a receiver in the same FOR maintaining some intrinsic
proper length between them will always cause the same measurement of
light's frequency and wavelength, right? We can't identify an
absolute rest frame, right? So how would that measurement change if
it were an absolute rest frame? If it doesn't change then you would
be measuring an intrinsic property of light in the same way a proper
length is intrinsic.
space...@gmail.com
Oct 7, 2012, 11:13:50 PM10/7/12
to
On Sunday, October 7, 2012 6:36:16 PM UTC-7, xxein wrote:
> On Oct 7, 11:53 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Getting closer to light: move behind it at near C.
> On Oct 7, 11:53 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Move toward it and the comming together is faster...
This is closing velocity of 2C possibility.
Mitchell Raemsch
Poutnik
Oct 8, 2012, 1:04:46 AM10/8/12
to
space...@gmail.com from space...@gmail.com
posted Sun, 7 Oct 2012 20:13:50 -0700 (PDT)
>
> Getting closer to light: move behind it at near C.
> Move toward it and the comming together is faster...
> This is closing velocity of 2C possibility.
wrt him light moves at c and you moves at v -> c,
or 2 light beams going against each other both at c.
For you light still moves at c wrt you,
whatever whatever speed you have to the other observer.
Pentcho Valev
Oct 8, 2012, 2:29:17 AM10/8/12
to
Honest Roberts,
Years ago, when you discovered that special relativity would survive even if "light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant speed of the Lorentz transform", countless zombies sang "Divine Einstein", "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity", and went into convulsions:
http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/dc1ebdf49c012de2
Tom Roberts: "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)."
Now I am afraid nobody, not even Mad Dog, finds your idiocies exciting.
Pentcho Valev
Years ago, when you discovered that special relativity would survive even if "light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant speed of the Lorentz transform", countless zombies sang "Divine Einstein", "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity", and went into convulsions:
http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/dc1ebdf49c012de2
Tom Roberts: "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)."
Now I am afraid nobody, not even Mad Dog, finds your idiocies exciting.
Pentcho Valev
Big Dog
Oct 8, 2012, 11:28:23 AM10/8/12
to
sodium source AT REST relative to him to have a wavelength of 589 nm.
Every other sodium source that the observer measures does not have a
measured wavelength of 589 nm. THAT is the statement made.
So you have lied, or you have used your own meanings of words already in
use.
Tom Roberts
Oct 8, 2012, 12:13:07 PM10/8/12
to
On 10/7/12 10/7/12 - 8:36 PM, xxein wrote:
> An emitter and a receiver in the same FOR maintaining some intrinsic
> proper length between them will always cause the same measurement of
> light's frequency and wavelength, right?
Hmmmm. In what appears to be an overblown attempt to be precise, you have
> An emitter and a receiver in the same FOR maintaining some intrinsic
> proper length between them will always cause the same measurement of
> light's frequency and wavelength, right?
introduced inconsistencies in your description. In particular, to what is this
length "intrinsic"? -- Certainly not either the emitter or the receiver.
But yes, a receiver at rest in the same INERTIAL FOR as the emitter will always
measure the same frequency and wavelength as the emitter.
> We can't identify an
> absolute rest frame, right?
non-scientific situations such as dreams and hallucinations, but that's irrelevant.
> So how would that measurement change if
> it were an absolute rest frame?
has, and how one models those effects. As physics currently has no such theory
or model, it is not possible to answer such a question.
> If it doesn't change then you would
> be measuring an intrinsic property of light in the same way a proper
> length is intrinsic.
improperly.
In any case, this would be a property of the EMITTER, not the light.
When a given emitter emits a light ray, the phase of the light ray is a function
on the manifold. IOW: the events of spacetime where each wavecrest occurs are
determined by properties of the emitter. But the spatial distance between any
pair of events is NOT an intrinsic property of the pair, it can only be measured
by projecting the events onto some length-measuring instrument; the result is
determined by both the events involved AND the instrument used (in particular,
its motion through the manifold). Ditto for the temporal interval between the
pair of events.
This is a key concept of physics, common to both relativity
and QM: a measurement consists of projecting some physical
quantity onto a measuring instrument. This is so for all
quantities of interest, such as length, duration, voltage,
current, etc.
Tom Roberts
Paul B. Andersen
Oct 8, 2012, 2:50:32 PM10/8/12
to
Webster:
Definition of LIE
: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
Ken has no intent to deceive, he honestly doesn't know better.
Ken is unable to see the distinction between:
"Wavelength of sodium source is intrinsic 589 nm in all frames."
and
"every observer measures his [stationary] sodium source to
have a wavelength of 589 nm."
There is no point in trying to explain it [or anything] to him.
Ken understands nothing.
But he never lies! :-)
--
Paul
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/
kenseto
Oct 8, 2012, 3:14:22 PM10/8/12
to
On Monday, October 8, 2012 2:50:35 PM UTC-4, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> On 08.10.2012 17:28, Big Dog wrote:
>
> > On 10/7/2012 4:38 PM, kenseto wrote:
>
> >> On Friday, October 5, 2012 11:35:13 AM UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
>
> >>> On 10/5/2012 10:27 AM, kenseto wrote:
>
> >>>
>
> >>>
>
> >>>
>
> >>>> Wavelength of sodium source is intrinsic 589 nm in all frames.
>
> >>>
>
> >>>
>
> >>>
>
> >>> That's either a lie, or it uses your own meanings of words already in
>
> >>> use.
>
> >>
>
> >> Hey idiot....SR says that every observer measures his sodium source to
>
> >> have a wavelength of 589 nm. Gee you are stuipd.
>
> >
>
> > That's a lie. The statement made is that every observer measures the
>
> > sodium source AT REST relative to him to have a wavelength of 589 nm.
>
> > Every other sodium source that the observer measures does not have a
>
> > measured wavelength of 589 nm. THAT is the statement made.
>
> >
>
> > So you have lied, or you have used your own meanings of words already in
>
> > use.
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
> Ken never lies.
>
>
>
> Webster:
>
> Definition of LIE
>
> : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
>
>
>
> Ken has no intent to deceive, he honestly doesn't know better.
>
>
>
> Ken is unable to see the distinction between:
>
> "Wavelength of sodium source is intrinsic 589 nm in all frames."
Yes this assumption is similar to the SR assumption that the speed
> On 08.10.2012 17:28, Big Dog wrote:
>
> > On 10/7/2012 4:38 PM, kenseto wrote:
>
> >> On Friday, October 5, 2012 11:35:13 AM UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
>
> >>> On 10/5/2012 10:27 AM, kenseto wrote:
>
> >>>
>
> >>>
>
> >>>
>
> >>>> Wavelength of sodium source is intrinsic 589 nm in all frames.
>
> >>>
>
> >>>
>
> >>>
>
> >>> That's either a lie, or it uses your own meanings of words already in
>
> >>> use.
>
> >>
>
> >> Hey idiot....SR says that every observer measures his sodium source to
>
> >> have a wavelength of 589 nm. Gee you are stuipd.
>
> >
>
> > That's a lie. The statement made is that every observer measures the
>
> > sodium source AT REST relative to him to have a wavelength of 589 nm.
>
> > Every other sodium source that the observer measures does not have a
>
> > measured wavelength of 589 nm. THAT is the statement made.
>
> >
>
> > So you have lied, or you have used your own meanings of words already in
>
> > use.
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
> Ken never lies.
>
>
>
> Webster:
>
> Definition of LIE
>
> : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
>
>
>
> Ken has no intent to deceive, he honestly doesn't know better.
>
>
>
> Ken is unable to see the distinction between:
>
> "Wavelength of sodium source is intrinsic 589 nm in all frames."
of light is a universal constant c in all frames. My assumption
is better than the SR assumption. Why? Because my assumption
does not give rise to paradoxes as does the SR assumption.
>
> and
>
> "every observer measures his [stationary] sodium source to
>
> have a wavelength of 589 nm."
light to be constant c in all frames. The measured
wavelength of sodium of 589 nm can both be intrinsic and
measured to be 589 nm. There is no distinction.
>
>
>
> There is no point in trying to explain it [or anything] to him.
>
> Ken understands nothing.
ROTFLOL....pot kettle black.
>
>
> There is no point in trying to explain it [or anything] to him.
>
> Ken understands nothing.
kenseto
Oct 8, 2012, 3:19:45 PM10/8/12
to
On Monday, October 8, 2012 11:28:14 AM UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
> On 10/7/2012 4:38 PM, kenseto wrote:
>
> > On Friday, October 5, 2012 11:35:13 AM UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
>
> >> On 10/5/2012 10:27 AM, kenseto wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>> Wavelength of sodium source is intrinsic 589 nm in all frames.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> That's either a lie, or it uses your own meanings of words already in use.
>
> >
>
> > Hey idiot....SR says that every observer measures his sodium source to have a wavelength of 589 nm. Gee you are stuipd.
>
>
>
> That's a lie. The statement made is that every observer measures the
>
> sodium source AT REST relative to him to have a wavelength of 589 nm.
Hey idiot that's what I said. Gee you are stupid.
> On 10/7/2012 4:38 PM, kenseto wrote:
>
> > On Friday, October 5, 2012 11:35:13 AM UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
>
> >> On 10/5/2012 10:27 AM, kenseto wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>> Wavelength of sodium source is intrinsic 589 nm in all frames.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> That's either a lie, or it uses your own meanings of words already in use.
>
> >
>
> > Hey idiot....SR says that every observer measures his sodium source to have a wavelength of 589 nm. Gee you are stuipd.
>
>
>
> That's a lie. The statement made is that every observer measures the
>
> sodium source AT REST relative to him to have a wavelength of 589 nm.
>
> Every other sodium source that the observer measures does not have a
>
> measured wavelength of 589 nm. THAT is the statement made.
in the observer's frame and the observer's grating defines a new
wavelength for this new light source.
>
>
>
wavelength for this new light source.
>
>
>
> So you have lied, or you have used your own meanings of words already in
>
> use.
It is you who lied.
>
> use.
Pentcho Valev
Oct 17, 2012, 5:35:02 PM10/17/12
to
A stationary source sends a light pulse towards a stationary observer. Then the source starts moving towards the observer and sends another pulse. The two pulses are physically different, judging from the different frequency they will have at reception, and the difference is obviously created BEFORE reception. What does the difference consist in?
On Thursday, October 4, 2012 10:04:58 PM UTC+2, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Stephen Hawking contradicts Tom Roberts: Wavelength is an INTRINSIC property - it can already be changed before the interaction with the observer:
>
>
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-Stephen-Hawking/dp/0553380168
>
> Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 3: "...we must first understand the Doppler effect. As we have seen, visible light consists of fluctuations, or waves, in the electromagnetic field. The wavelength (or distance from one wave crest to the next) of light is extremely small, ranging from four to seven ten-millionths of a meter. The different wavelengths of light are what the human eye sees as different colors, with the longest wavelengths appearing at the red end of the spectrum and the shortest wavelengths at the blue end. Now imagine a source of light at a constant distance from us, such as a star, emitting waves of light at a constant wavelength. Obviously the wavelength of the waves we receive will be the same as the wavelength at which they are emitted (the gravitational field of the galaxy will not be large enough to have a significant effect). Suppose now that the source starts moving toward us. When the source emits the next wave crest it will be nearer to us, so the distance between wave crests will be smaller than when the star was stationary. This means that the wavelength of the waves we receive is shorter than when the star was stationary. Correspondingly, if the source is moving away from us, the wavelength of the waves we receive will be longer. In the case of light, therefore, means that stars moving away from us will have their spectra shifted toward the red end of the spectrum (red-shifted) and those moving toward us will have their spectra blue-shifted."
>
>
>
> Pentcho Valev
On Thursday, October 4, 2012 10:04:58 PM UTC+2, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Stephen Hawking contradicts Tom Roberts: Wavelength is an INTRINSIC property - it can already be changed before the interaction with the observer:
>
>
>
>
> Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 3: "...we must first understand the Doppler effect. As we have seen, visible light consists of fluctuations, or waves, in the electromagnetic field. The wavelength (or distance from one wave crest to the next) of light is extremely small, ranging from four to seven ten-millionths of a meter. The different wavelengths of light are what the human eye sees as different colors, with the longest wavelengths appearing at the red end of the spectrum and the shortest wavelengths at the blue end. Now imagine a source of light at a constant distance from us, such as a star, emitting waves of light at a constant wavelength. Obviously the wavelength of the waves we receive will be the same as the wavelength at which they are emitted (the gravitational field of the galaxy will not be large enough to have a significant effect). Suppose now that the source starts moving toward us. When the source emits the next wave crest it will be nearer to us, so the distance between wave crests will be smaller than when the star was stationary. This means that the wavelength of the waves we receive is shorter than when the star was stationary. Correspondingly, if the source is moving away from us, the wavelength of the waves we receive will be longer. In the case of light, therefore, means that stars moving away from us will have their spectra shifted toward the red end of the spectrum (red-shifted) and those moving toward us will have their spectra blue-shifted."
>
>
>
> Pentcho Valev
0 new messages