Re: Why the first postulate of SR is wrong, was Re: How does the Light Move?
Daryl McCullough
>Very good. Of course the speed of the light varies with the speed of the
>emitter.
No, it certainly does not. It has been known for nearly 150 years that light is
a rapidly oscillating electromagnetic field described by Maxwell's equations.
The speed of light is uniquely determined by two parameters: epsilon and mu,
where: (1) the electric field E a distance r from a point particle of charge Q
has magnitude Q/(4 pi epsilon r^2), and (2) the magnetic field B a distance r
from a wire carrying current J has magnitude mu J/(2 pi r). The astounding
prediction of Maxwell's equations is that these two constants determined from
time independent charges and currents imply the existence of travelling
electromagnetic waves of velocity c = 1/square-root(mu epsilon). The velocity of
the emitter has no role whatsoever in the theory, which has been tested in an
enormous number and variety of experiments.
--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY
BradGuth
wrote:
The initial wave front isn't limited to 'c'.
Are you suggesting that gravity is also limited to 'c'?
We can't see much further than 15 billion light years because the
source of those photons are moving away at something near or above the
velocity of 'c'.
~ BG
~ BG
Newberry
>
> >Very good. Of course the speed of the light varies with the speed of the
> >emitter.
>
> No, it certainly does not. It has been known for nearly 150 years that light is
> a rapidly oscillating electromagnetic field described by Maxwell's equations.
> The speed of light is uniquely determined by two parameters: epsilon and mu,
> where: (1) the electric field E a distance r from a point particle of charge Q
> has magnitude Q/(4 pi epsilon r^2), and (2) the magnetic field B a distance r
> from a wire carrying current J has magnitude mu J/(2 pi r). The astounding
> prediction of Maxwell's equations is that these two constants determined from
> time independent charges and currents imply the existence of travelling
> electromagnetic waves of velocity c = 1/square-root(mu epsilon).
Velocity c with respect to what?
eric gisse
> On Dec 20, 7:44 am, stevendaryl3...@yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough)
> wrote:
>> Arindam Banerjee says...
>>
>> >Very good. Of course the speed of the light varies with the speed of
>> >the emitter.
>>
>> No, it certainly does not. It has been known for nearly 150 years that
>> light is a rapidly oscillating electromagnetic field described by
>> Maxwell's equations. The speed of light is uniquely determined by two
>> parameters: epsilon and mu, where: (1) the electric field E a distance r
>> from a point particle of charge Q has magnitude Q/(4 pi epsilon r^2), and
>> (2) the magnetic field B a distance r from a wire carrying current J has
>> magnitude mu J/(2 pi r). The astounding prediction of Maxwell's equations
>> is that these two constants determined from time independent charges and
>> currents imply the existence of travelling electromagnetic waves of
>> velocity c = 1/square-root(mu epsilon).
>
> Velocity c with respect to what?
Inertial frames. Do catch up.
Daryl McCullough
>Velocity c with respect to what?
Operationally, constancy of the speed of light means this: Take two standard
clocks and synchronize them. Slowly move them a distance L apart (as measured by
standard meter sticks). Keeping the two clocks at rest relative to one another
(make sure that the measured distance between them remains constant), send a
light signal from one clock to the other. Let T be the difference between the
time at which the signal was received (as shown on the receiving clock) and the
time at which the signal was sent (as shown on the sending clock). Then the
prediction of relativity is that L/T = c, regardless of the state of motion of
the clocks, as long as the clocks are not accelerated (and there are no
gravitational fields). If the clocks are accelerated (or if there are
gravitational fields present), then the prediction still holds in a limiting
sense: in the limit as L --> 0, L/T = c.
Sam Wormley
> Newberry says...
>
>> Velocity c with respect to what?
>
> Operationally, constancy of the speed of light means this: Take two standard
What makes you think that "slowly" moving them makes a difference?
Daryl McCullough
Because if clocks are moved about at speeds comparable to the speed of
light, then they do not remain synchronized (unless their motions are
exactly identical).
Sam Wormley
Any acceleration (no matter how small) spoils synchronization.
Satellite clocks are an excellent example.
Daryl McCullough
> Any acceleration (no matter how small) spoils synchronization.
You're being very tedious. What you are saying is certainly true, but
why you think you need to tell me this, I'm not sure.
Sam Wormley
Sorry--More for the benefit of other readers.
-Sam
Daryl McCullough
Sorry for over-reacting, then.
--
Daryl
Newberry
wrote:
> Sam Wormley says...
>
>
>
> >On 12/21/09 10:30 AM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
> >> Newberry says...
>
> >>> Velocity c with respect to what?
>
> >> Operationally, constancy of the speed of light means this: Take two standard
> >> clocks and synchronize them. Slowly move them a distance...
>
> > What makes you think that "slowly" moving them makes a difference?
>
> Because if clocks are moved about at speeds comparable to the speed of
> light,
Speed of light with respect to what?
Androcles
"Newberry" <newbe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:06aa47ef-5126-4dab...@s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 21, 10:55 am, stevendaryl3...@yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough)
wrote:
> Sam Wormley says...
>
>
>
> >On 12/21/09 10:30 AM, Daryl McCullough wrote:
> >> Newberry says...
>
> >>> Velocity c with respect to what?
>
> >> Operationally, constancy of the speed of light means this: Take two
> >> standard
> >> clocks and synchronize them. Slowly move them a distance...
>
> > What makes you think that "slowly" moving them makes a difference?
>
> Because if clocks are moved about at speeds comparable to the speed of
> light,
Speed of light with respect to what?
===============================
Clueless Ignorant Idiot Troll McCullough has no idea.
"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in
the stationary system, with the velocity c-v, so that
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img31.gif
Do not expect a sensible answer from the dickhead.
Surfer
<newbe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Speed of light with respect to what?
>
SR does not attempt to answer that question.
This paper does however:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.0039
"......The spacecraft observations demonstrate again that the speed of
light is not invariant, and is isotropic only with respect to a
dynamical 3-space....."
Arindam Banerjee
"Daryl McCullough" <stevend...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hglgo...@drn.newsguy.com...
> Arindam Banerjee says...
>
>>Very good. Of course the speed of the light varies with the speed of the
>>emitter.
>
> No, it certainly does not.
It most certainly does. By rubbing out what I wrote, by not even
considering it, let alone debunking it, are you not proving yourself a
LIAR? Are not all you Einstieinians are the most dangerous scoundrels and
frauds on this planet, far far far worse than all the politicians and
terrorists? The sooner the public wakes up and knows you for what you types
are, the most abominable scum that called themselves men of science, won't
it be all the better for humanity? We can have interstellar travel within
20 years, and the Hydrogen Transmission Network to fix our energy and water
needs for all time. The only problem is that the einsteinian scum are
hogging all the research money, and won't let go.
It has been known for nearly 150 years that light is
> a rapidly oscillating electromagnetic field described by Maxwell's
> equations.
> The speed of light is uniquely determined by two parameters: epsilon and
> mu,
> where: (1) the electric field E a distance r from a point particle of
> charge Q
> has magnitude Q/(4 pi epsilon r^2), and (2) the magnetic field B a
> distance r
> from a wire carrying current J has magnitude mu J/(2 pi r). The astounding
> prediction of Maxwell's equations is that these two constants determined
> from
> time independent charges and currents imply the existence of travelling
> electromagnetic waves of velocity c = 1/square-root(mu epsilon). The
> velocity of
> the emitter has no role whatsoever in the theory, which has been tested in
> an
> enormous number and variety of experiments.
Same lies repeated time and again do not constitute science. They are not
even religion. They are simply FRAUD. All you theoretical "scientists" are
FRAUDS.
Now, let any institution with any guts sue me.
We shall settle this matter in any LAW COURT where they have to consider the
grammar of the English language, and have a minimum level of HONESTY and
INTELLIGENCE.
I would like more interest in this matter. I will then post my work in
Internet once again, the way I have done for the last ten years! I am sad
to say that I have lost faith in human nature, thanks to the vile influence
of the einsteinians upon the public mind. Let us see, if ONE among you all
has the guts to ask me to post my work once again. If ALL are liars and
cowards, what is the point... Not in this medium at any rate!
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee.
Arindam Banerjee
The speed of light in a dielectric medium is c/(square root of the
refractive index). I worked in the microwave area for over 8 years,
desigining strip line circuits, and it was an experimental fact that light
would travel slowly - the line lengths were thus adjusted to give the
required phase differences.
It was the Michelson Morley Interferomtry experiment that gave the wrong
impression (based upon a huge bungle) about all the e=mcc stuff. It is most
unworthy for any man of honour to believe that crap, especially when I have
found out the correct equation linking mass and energy from first
principles.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee.
Daryl McCullough
>The speed of light in a dielectric medium is c/(square root of the
>refractive index). I worked in the microwave area for over 8 years,
>desigining strip line circuits, and it was an experimental fact that light
>would travel slowly - the line lengths were thus adjusted to give the
>required phase differences.
Yes, that is true. The current understanding of dielectrics at the microscopic
level is this: An external electromagnetic field is applied to a material. In
response to this external field, charges and dipoles in the material move and
change orientation. This in turn produces its own response field, which adds to
the original external field. In the case of magnetic fields, the net result is
to increase the field, as magnetic dipoles tend to line up with external
magnetic fields. In the case of electric fields, the net result is to decrease
the field, because charges and electric dipoles move around to cancel the
external field.
The propagation of electromagnetic fields in matter thus includes both the
vacuum propagation of the fields and also the (approximately linear) response of
the matter. These combined effects propagate slower than pure electromagnetic
fields in vacuum.
>It was the Michelson Morley Interferomtry experiment that gave the wrong
>impression (based upon a huge bungle) about all the e=mcc stuff. It is most
>unworthy for any man of honour to believe that crap, especially when I have
>found out the correct equation linking mass and energy from first
>principles.
I don't think so.
Daryl McCullough
>
>
>"Daryl McCullough" <stevend...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:hglgo...@drn.newsguy.com...
>> Arindam Banerjee says...
>>
>>>Very good. Of course the speed of the light varies with the speed of the
>>>emitter.
>>
>> No, it certainly does not.
>
>It most certainly does. By rubbing out what I wrote, by not even
>considering it, let alone debunking it, are you not proving yourself a
>LIAR?
No. I described what actually happens in electromagnetic propagation. If you
want someone to seriously consider your alternative theory, send it in to a
physics journal.
spudnik
see the excellent paper, referred-to by Surfer, above in #17.
anyway, there is no such a thing as a vacuum, although
its experimental discoverer believed that it was.
> The propagation of electromagnetic fields in matter thus includes both the
> vacuum propagation of the fields and also the (approximately linear) response of
> the matter. These combined effects propagate slower than pure electromagnetic
> fields in vacuum.
thus:
I have never learned what i.e. & e.g. abbreviate, but if
they mean "that is" and "for example," then
the usual usages seem somewhat contrary to normal English grammar,
unless one uses a comma e.g.; I know, though,
that such punctution is somewhat superfluous,
considering the abbreviation's effect in reading it (note that
such ellisions are very common in British English,
what I'd call "run-on sentences" & so forth, apparently because
of the duality with French court usages .-)
--l'Oeuvre!
www.wlym.com
Newberry
wrote:
Can you explain the paradox of twins?
PD
What paradox? There is a teaching puzzle, designed specifically to
highlight where students have oversimplified what relativity says. Is
this what you mean?
spudnik
"paradox;"
the twin on the space station or Moon lives at a _____ rate -- i
forgot!
see, below, for Arindam's Cable ... which is not Sir Arthur's God-
am geosynchronous elevator!
thus quoth:
The numerous light speed anisotropy experiments have also revealed
turbulence in the velocity of the 3-space relative to the earth. This
turbulence amounts to the detection of sub-mHz gravitational waves -
which are present in the Michelson and Morley 1887 data, as discussed
in [21], and also present in the Miller data [8, 22] also using a gas-
mode Michelson interferometer, and by Torr and Kolen [12], DeWitte
[13] and Cahill [14] measuring RF speeds in coaxial cables, and by
Cahill [15] and Cahill and Stokes [17] using an optical-fiber
interferometer. The existing doppler shift data also offers a resource
to characterise this new form of gravitational waves.
thus quoth:
In the process, Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke will pass into
quieted retirement, while the salvageable remains of the ruined
Federal Reserve System, are transferred to national-banking functions
which are based on the precedents of the first and second National
Bank of the United States.
http://larouchepub.com/lar/2009/3650natl_banking.html
--l'OEuvre -- FCUK Copenhagen!
www.wlym.com
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2009/Relativistic_Moon.pdf
Newberry
Let there be a clock A on Earth and a clock B on a rocket. Accelerate
the rocket to 0.5c. Let it fly much longer than the time of
acceleration. The clock B is ticking more slowly with respect to A,
and A is ticking more slowly with respect B. Now reverse the direction
of the rocket and fly it back to Earth. The time of deceleration/
acceleration is insignificant compared to the time of flight. The
clock B is still ticking more slowly with respect to A, and A is
ticking more slowly with respect to B. Now decelerate the rocket and
land it on Earth. Time of deceleration insignificant. Compare the two
clocks. Clock B is behind clock A, and clock A is behind clock B.
Sam Wormley
>
> Let there be a clock A on Earth and a clock B on a rocket. Accelerate
> the rocket to 0.5c. Let it fly much longer than the time of
> acceleration. The clock B is ticking more slowly with respect to A,
> and A is ticking more slowly with respect B. Now reverse the direction
> of the rocket and fly it back to Earth. The time of deceleration/
> acceleration is insignificant compared to the time of flight. The
> clock B is still ticking more slowly with respect to A, and A is
> ticking more slowly with respect to B. Now decelerate the rocket and
> land it on Earth. Time of deceleration insignificant. Compare the two
> clocks. Clock B is behind clock A, and clock A is behind clock B.
No, your problem is you are assuming the accelerations
are insignificant.
Physics FAQ: The Twin Paradox
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_paradox.html
Newberry
>
> - Show quoted text -
If you are in a free fall does your clock still go more slowly? Since
there is no pull there should be no red shift.
Sam Wormley
> If you are in a free fall does your clock still go more slowly? Since
> there is no pull there should be no red shift.
GPS Satellites are in free fall.
>
> See: Relativistic Effects on Satellite Clocks
> http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node5.html
spudnik
frame,
'taken' to be at rest," and this includes deceleration, and
the acceleration of "free falling" at ninety degrees (precessional).
thus:
you mean, the Pink Floyd side of Moon,
that Al Gore believes in?
> But it's so tenuous, it's also why Einstein discovered Maxwell's
> Equations,
> and Euclid's little book [similarity proof of 2d pythagorean theorem].
> And real engineers discovered the Dark Side of The Moon, Laser
> > John Norton, 1 Mar 2009: "A common belief among philosophers of
> > physics is that the passage of time of ordinary experience is merely
> > an illusion. The idea is seductive since it explains away the awkward
> > fact that our best physical theories of space and time have yet to
> > capture this passage. I urge that we should resist the idea. We know
> > what illusions are like and how to detect them. Passage exhibits no
> > sign of being an illusion....Following from the work of Einstein,
> > Minkowski and many more, physics...
Newberry
> On 12/24/09 12:01 AM, Newberry wrote:
>
> > If you are in a free fall does your clock still go more slowly? Since
> > there is no pull there should be no red shift.
>
> GPS Satellites are in free fall.
>
by about 7 μs/day because it moves at v = 4 km/s. [Is this the orbital
speed or speed wrt the GPS receiver?] Does the satellite also see my
clock slipping 7 μs/day?
>
> > See: Relativistic Effects on Satellite Clocks
Newberry
>
> >The speed of light in a dielectric medium is c/(square root of the
> >refractive index). I worked in the microwave area for over 8 years,
> >desigining strip line circuits, and it was an experimental fact that light
> >would travel slowly - the line lengths were thus adjusted to give the
> >required phase differences.
>
> Yes, that is true. The current understanding of dielectrics at the microscopic
> level is this: An external electromagnetic field is applied to a material. In
> response to this external field, charges and dipoles in the material move and
> change orientation. This in turn produces its own response field, which adds to
> the original external field. In the case of magnetic fields, the net result is
> to increase the field, as magnetic dipoles tend to line up with external
> magnetic fields. In the case of electric fields, the net result is to decrease
> the field, because charges and electric dipoles move around to cancel the
> external field.
>
> The propagation of electromagnetic fields in matter thus includes both the
> vacuum propagation of the fields and also the (approximately linear) response of
> the matter. These combined effects propagate slower than pure electromagnetic
> fields in vacuum.
Does this imply that the photons get absorbed and re-emitted?
Newberry
I have actually read the FAQ. First of all this paragraph does not
make any sense.
"But it needs to be emphasised that we are not using any actual
General Relativity here, and no one ever needs to, to analyse the
paradox. We are simply grabbing a result about real gravitational
fields from General Relativity, because we know (from other work) that
it does apply to a pseudo gravitational field."
Secondly, I have a simple question for you: Does or does not Terrence
observe Stella's red shift during her turnaround?
Sam Wormley
> This is a good example actually. The satellite clock will be delayed
> by about 7 οΏ½s/day because it moves at v = 4 km/s. [Is this the orbital
> speed or speed wrt the GPS receiver?] Does the satellite also see my
> clock slipping 7 οΏ½s/day?
Suggest you read: Relativistic Effects on Satellite Clocks
>
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node5.html
Antares 531
<newbe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Dec 23, 7:06锟絘m, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 22, 11:45锟絧m, Newberry <newberr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Dec 22, 5:27锟絘m, stevendaryl3...@yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough)
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > > Arindam Banerjee says...
>>
>> > > >The speed of light in a dielectric medium is c/(square root of the
>> > > >refractive index). I worked in the microwave area for over 8 years,
>> > > >desigining strip line circuits, and it was an experimental fact that light
>> > > >would travel slowly - the line lengths were thus adjusted to give the
>> > > >required phase differences.
>>
>> > > Yes, that is true. The current understanding of dielectrics at the microscopic
>> > > level is this: An external electromagnetic field is applied to a material. In
>> > > response to this external field, charges and dipoles in the material move and
>> > > change orientation. This in turn produces its own response field, which adds to
>> > > the original external field. In the case of magnetic fields, the net result is
>> > > to increase the field, as magnetic dipoles tend to line up with external
>> > > magnetic fields. In the case of electric fields, the net result is to decrease
>> > > the field, because charges and electric dipoles move around to cancel the
>> > > external field.
>>
>> > > The propagation of electromagnetic fields in matter thus includes both the
>> > > vacuum propagation of the fields and also the (approximately linear) response of
>> > > the matter. These combined effects propagate slower than pure electromagnetic
>> > > fields in vacuum.
>>
>> > > >It was the Michelson Morley Interferomtry experiment that gave the wrong
>> > > >impression (based upon a huge bungle) about all the e=mcc stuff. 锟絀t is most
>> > > >unworthy for any man of honour to believe that crap, especially when I have
>> > > >found out the correct equation linking mass and energy from first
>> > > >principles.
>>
>> > > I don't think so.
>>
>> > > --
>> > > Daryl McCullough
>> > > Ithaca, NY
>>
>> > Can you explain the paradox of twins?
>>
>> What paradox? There is a teaching puzzle, designed specifically to
>> highlight where students have oversimplified what relativity says. Is
>> this what you mean?- Hide quoted text -
>
>Let there be a clock A on Earth and a clock B on a rocket. Accelerate
>the rocket to 0.5c. Let it fly much longer than the time of
>acceleration. The clock B is ticking more slowly with respect to A,
>and A is ticking more slowly with respect B. Now reverse the direction
>of the rocket and fly it back to Earth. The time of deceleration/
>acceleration is insignificant compared to the time of flight. The
>clock B is still ticking more slowly with respect to A, and A is
>ticking more slowly with respect to B. Now decelerate the rocket and
>land it on Earth. Time of deceleration insignificant. Compare the two
>clocks. Clock B is behind clock A, and clock A is behind clock B.
>
Take this a bit farther...two photons leave the surface of the sun at
the same time and travel along parallel lines. What is the speed of
photon A relative to photon B? Assume, for the sake of this thought
experiment that it is possible to measure these velocities from each
photon. Think of this as hopping onto photon B for a ride and
measuring the speed of photon A while you are on this journey.
Gordon
Androcles
"Antares 531" <gordonl...@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:e1iaj5548g0b8s9hu...@4ax.com...>>On Dec 23, 7:06 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Dec 22, 11:45 pm, Newberry <newberr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > On Dec 22, 5:27 am, stevendaryl3...@yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough)
How would you know that? And isn't it more interesting if they leave
the surface of the star at different times and arrive in your telescope
simultaneously?
Antares 531
Simultaneously? From whose or from what perspective?
My quest for understanding involves the idea that, from a photon's
perspective, time stops. That is, a photon's time in transit is zero,
from it's temporal perspective.
Extending this thought experiment a bit, a space ship traveling at the
speed of light would not perceive any time in transit. The star it was
headed for would appear to be coming toward the space ship at c and
the time before a collision would be zero.
Gordon
Androcles
From the perspective of your eyeball, moron.
When A meets B then B meets A.
When photon meets eyeball then eyeball meets photon.
When photon meets meets photon at eyeball then eyeball meets
both photons simultaneously. That's what "simultaneous" means.
What do YOU mean by "two photons leave the surface of the sun
at the same time"?
> My quest for understanding involves the idea that, from a photon's
> perspective, time stops.
Yeah, well, what drugs are you on? My quest is to find sane people,
not drunken lunatics spaced out on heroin and babbling about
time stopping.
Newberry
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 19:12:00 -0800 (PST), Newberry
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Dec 23, 7:06 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Dec 22, 11:45 pm, Newberry <newberr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Dec 22, 5:27 am, stevendaryl3...@yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough)
> >> > wrote:
>
> >> > > Arindam Banerjee says...
>
> >> > > >The speed of light in a dielectric medium is c/(square root of the
> >> > > >refractive index). I worked in the microwave area for over 8 years,
> >> > > >desigining strip line circuits, and it was an experimental fact that light
> >> > > >would travel slowly - the line lengths were thus adjusted to give the
> >> > > >required phase differences.
>
> >> > > Yes, that is true. The current understanding of dielectrics at the microscopic
> >> > > level is this: An external electromagnetic field is applied to a material. In
> >> > > response to this external field, charges and dipoles in the material move and
> >> > > change orientation. This in turn produces its own response field, which adds to
> >> > > the original external field. In the case of magnetic fields, the net result is
> >> > > to increase the field, as magnetic dipoles tend to line up with external
> >> > > magnetic fields. In the case of electric fields, the net result is to decrease
> >> > > the field, because charges and electric dipoles move around to cancel the
> >> > > external field.
>
> >> > > The propagation of electromagnetic fields in matter thus includes both the
> >> > > vacuum propagation of the fields and also the (approximately linear) response of
> >> > > the matter. These combined effects propagate slower than pure electromagnetic
> >> > > fields in vacuum.
>
> >> > > >It was the Michelson Morley Interferomtry experiment that gave the wrong
I suppose the answer is that in fact you cannot measure the velocity
of one photon from another.
Antares 531
Why? Okay, I realize this was just a thought experiment and could
never be objectively tested, but it seems rational, to me.
Taking this a bit farther, if space ships could travel at c, and two
such space ships were traveling along parallel lines, near each other,
what would each space ship observe as the velocity of the other?
Gordon
Newberry
0. (The speed would be c - epsilon.) The photons have the obligation
(according to SR) to travel at c in any inertial frame. Space ships do
not. In SR everything is based on verification. Since a photon cannot
be absorbed in another photon there is no way to say what velocity
they have wrt one another. I suppose you could dispute this account
but there is no major inconsistency.
You could probably also say that the photons travel at c in all
inertial frames except the frames that themelves travel at c. Then two
parallel photons would have the velocity 0 and two photons traveling
in the opposite directions would have the velocity 2c.
PD
This is where the oversimplification occurs. A remarkable thing
happens to the reading on clock A, as seen on the rocket B, during the
acceleration back toward home.
PD
> On Dec 23, 10:10 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:> On 12/24/09 12:01 AM, Newberry wrote:
>
> > > If you are in a free fall does your clock still go more slowly? Since
> > > there is no pull there should be no red shift.
>
> > GPS Satellites are in free fall.
>
> This is a good example actually. The satellite clock will be delayed
> speed or speed wrt the GPS receiver?] Does the satellite also see my
The GPS satellite is not in an inertial frame of reference. It is
*constantly* accelerating. Which the Earth clock is not.
This is precisely the lesson that the twin puzzle is aimed to
instruct.
>
>
>
> > > See: Relativistic Effects on Satellite Clocks
> > > http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node5....Hide quoted text -
Newberry
shift during B's acceleration back towards home.
>
> > The
> > clock B is still ticking more slowly with respect to A, and A is
> > ticking more slowly with respect to B. Now decelerate the rocket and
> > land it on Earth. Time of deceleration insignificant. Compare the two
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Daryl McCullough
>The GPS satellite is not in an inertial frame of reference. It is
>*constantly* accelerating. Which the Earth clock is not.
I'm sure you don't need to be told this, but for others reading,
the Earth clock is not in an inertial frame of reference, either.
For one thing, the Earth is rotating. For another, the Earth has
gravity, so something on the surface of the Earth is accelerating
upward relative to an object in free-fall.
spudnik
frames.
surfer's paper is good, because it accounts for the so-called null
results of M&M, DCMiller et al -- also, in a graph (fig.3 .-);
it's not perfect, but it's still great!
http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.0039
"......The spacecraft observations demonstrate again that the speed
of
light is not invariant, and is isotropic only with respect to a
dynamical 3-space....."
> I'm sure you don't need to be told this, but for others reading,
> the Earth clock is not in an inertial frame of reference, either.
> For one thing, the Earth is rotating. For another, the Earth has
> gravity, so something on the surface of the Earth is accelerating
> upward relative to an object in free-fall.
--l'OEuvre,
http://wlym.com
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2009/Relativistic_Moon.pdf
FCUK Copenhagen free carbon-credit trade rip-off;
put a tariff on imported energy!
Newberry
> On Dec 25, 12:05 am, Newberry <newberr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 23, 10:10 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:> On 12/24/09 12:01 AM, Newberry wrote:
>
> > > > If you are in a free fall does your clock still go more slowly? Since
> > > > there is no pull there should be no red shift.
>
> > > GPS Satellites are in free fall.
>
> > This is a good example actually. The satellite clock will be delayed
> > by about 7 ìs/day because it moves at v = 4 km/s. [Is this the orbital
> > speed or speed wrt the GPS receiver?] Does the satellite also see my
> > clock slipping 7 ìs/day?
>
> The GPS satellite is not in an inertial frame of reference. It is
> *constantly* accelerating. Which the Earth clock is not.
>
> This is precisely the lesson that the twin puzzle is aimed to
> instruct.
>
this causes a pseudo-gravitational field pointing outwards? And this
causes the observer on the Earth to see the satellite's red shift?
[canceled by the GR blue shift.]
>
> > > > See: Relativistic Effects on Satellite Clocks
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
PD
PD
Here's a nice short presentation about it.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_paradox.html