GPS vs. Source Dependency
![Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com's profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjURN6b50hrZp1VmOKY6vUoD4xke_qxfdpwlGhkd6mvzimVI=s40-c)
Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com
clueless.
I track Myxo's figures for radial velocity of GPS satellites at the
horizon, but they're off by a factor of 2, due to assuming the Earth
doesn't rotate. Since it does, the effective period of the GPS relative
to the observer is 24 hours not 12, therefore the maximal radial
velocity is only half what Myxo gives.
Let r be the radius of the Earth, and R the radius of the GPS orbit,
which is about 4.1 r. Then the azimuthal angle phi from true
horizontal when the GPS is at the horizon is:
phi = arctan r/R = arctan 1/4.1 = 13.7 degrees, as you say.
>From the law of cosines, where x is the distance from observer to
satellite:
x^2 = r^2 + R^2 - 2R cos (theta) where theta is the compliment of phi,
or the angle to the satellite from the vertical. At the horizon it's 90
- 13.7 = 76.3 degrees
We would like to know what dx/d(theta) is, where theta is the vertical
angle to a satellite on the horizon. If we differentiate the
expression for x with regard to theta and put in theta = 90-arctan r/R,
we find something really interesting, which is that dx/d(theta) at that
horizon value of theta is exactly r per radian. It's independent of
the value of R! If R were smaller, the vertical angle we'd have to
work with at the horizon would decrease, and we'd end up with the same
answer. This is cute. The maximal radial velocity depends only on the
radius of the earth, and the period. Of course, for real satellites
the period is a function of the satellite radius.
Anyway, if we know the period, it goes like this:
dr/dt = maximal radial speed = dr/d(theta) * d(theta)/dt
Here dr/d(theta) = r/radian and d(theta)/dt = 2pi radians per 24 hours
(again remember we have to use the apparent period, not the real one of
12 hours)
This works out to r * (2pi/24*60*60) = 4e7 m / (86,400) = 463 m/sec.
Note that we didn't use the GPS satellite's distance. All we needed to
know at this point was its effective period. This is correct to the
digits given, at least. The earth's circumference is very close to 4e7
m because that's how the meter was originally defined.
Sicne 463 m/sec is 1.54 parts per million of the speed of c, that would
put quite the kibosh on a GPS satellite receiver that is supposed to
find its place in a horizontal plane to better than 1 part in 10
million (easily 2.6 meters from satellites 2.6 e7 meters away), by
timing one-way signal propagation delay.
SBH
tj Frazir
Your reciever neads a tide corection.
The sat moves around a bit ,,the ground station will ajust time on it
so its sig passes a point in space on time.
The moon pulls on your position and bends the light a few yards .
my gps has tide plotter.
it corects the moon-rake.
Tom Capizzi
"Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" <sbha...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:1107410861....@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
If r is the radius of the earth, the figure above can be regrouped as
(2 pi *r) / (24 * 60 * 60). The numerator is just the circumference of a
circle, such as the equator. The denominator is the number of seconds
in one day. So the velocity calculated in this manner is essentially the
speed of a point on the equator itself.
According to the GPS specs, they are actually travelling around
7000 mph. This is more than 3000 m/sec. or roughly 8 times the figure
above. This is consistent with an orbit that is 4.1 times longer, and
a period that is about half a day.
>
> Note that we didn't use the GPS satellite's distance. All we needed to
> know at this point was its effective period. This is correct to the
> digits given, at least. The earth's circumference is very close to 4e7
> m because that's how the meter was originally defined.
>
> Sicne 463 m/sec is 1.54 parts per million of the speed of c, that would
> put quite the kibosh on a GPS satellite receiver that is supposed to
> find its place in a horizontal plane to better than 1 part in 10
> million (easily 2.6 meters from satellites 2.6 e7 meters away), by
> timing one-way signal propagation delay.
>
> SBH
>
I'm not sure what your point is here. Total travel time is not sufficient
to locate position. It takes 3 or 4 separate signals to triangulate a
location. Then it is not so much total travel time from the satellite, but
a comparison of the different times. In any case, the satellite velocity
is off by almost an order of magnitude. What are you claiming this has
to do with GPS accuracy?
Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com
a few yards, and the tide plotter is for use on boats.
Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com
Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com
Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com
earth weren't rotating at all, you'd plug 12 hours into the period, and
the radial velocity of the GPS satellite would be twice as large.
This is NOT the ORBITAL velocity, which of course is 3.9 kps with
regard to a non-rotating Earth, and 0.46 kps less than that with regard
to the ground. What we're talking about is the vector component of the
orbital velocity toward and away from the ground observer, which is
zero when the satellite is overhead, and maximally about 0.46 kps
toward or away from the observer depending on whether the satellite
(moving retrograde to the Sun and Moon) is just rising on the W horizon
(coming toward the observer) or just sinking in the E (going away).
The relevence is to the discussion with anti-relativity people who
think radio signals from moving objects in vacuum somehow gain the
relative velocity v, and emerge at c+v or c-v.
Yes, GPS is a triangulation of times-of-flight, since if you know the
time of signal flight t from one satellite you only know you're on the
surface of a particular sphere of radius ct, and 2 puts you on a
circle, 3 gives you 2 points on the circle, and 4 nails you. But if the
satellites are all moving toward or away from you by some good fraction
c, as compared with the accuracy of the time of flight you need to
measure, it screws even triangulation distances like this up
completely. My point is, that it doesn't. Nobody uses t(c+v) for the
distance to some satellite moving toward you at radial vector velocity
v.
GPS works, and no correction is used for the direct radial velocity of
the satellites toward or away from ground observers.
SBH
John C. Polasek
<sbha...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
The only way to be sure of what you're doing is to take each velocity
and gravity vs infinity, and then net them out. I did that in my
gravity paper you can see at http://dualspace.net. Also shown there is
the relativistic where the effects are combined in a cryptic quotient.
John Polasek
If you have something to say write an equation.
If you have nothing to say, write an essay.
Henri Wilson
<sbha...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
That is not true.
GPS assumes constant c but then corrects for doppler phase shift. Same result
as using c+v, really.
>
>SBH
Tom Capizzi
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
news:nt8i01137vjdetil9...@4ax.com...
So what? Even if you are telling the truth (not necessarily guaranteed) it
only
means that the formulae involved agree in one particular application. It
would
not prove that light speed is anything other than c, nor is it support for
your
tired old ballistic theory. You post so much nonsense about this that you
need
to post a reference that is credible before we can even accept your claim.
Henri Wilson
wrote:
Tom, get it into your head, SPEED IS RELATIVE.
Light moves at c relative to its source. It has no other reference.
>You post so much nonsense about this that you
>need
>to post a reference that is credible before we can even accept your claim.
>
The Ghost In The Machine
<H@>
wrote
on Wed, 09 Feb 2005 21:06:48 GMT
<gouk011urkev291rp...@4ax.com>:
[snipped]
> Tom, get it into your head, SPEED IS RELATIVE.
>
> Light moves at c relative to its source. It has no other reference.
Light also moves at c relative to whatever is measuring it.
Strange but true.
Any other, erm, flashes of brilliance? :-)
[rest snipped]
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Henri Wilson
<ew...@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote:
>In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson)
><H@>
> wrote
>on Wed, 09 Feb 2005 21:06:48 GMT
><gouk011urkev291rp...@4ax.com>:
>> On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 14:50:47 GMT, "Tom Capizzi" <etian...@verizon.net>
>> wrote:
>
>[snipped]
>
>> Tom, get it into your head, SPEED IS RELATIVE.
>>
>> Light moves at c relative to its source. It has no other reference.
>
>
>Light also moves at c relative to whatever is measuring it.
>Strange but true.
No Ghost. The universal constant 'c' has the same value no matter who measures
it.
'c' also happens to be the speed of light wrt its source. It is NOT a measure
of OWLS generally.
>
>Any other, erm, flashes of brilliance? :-)
I get about one every hour, Ghost.
>
>[rest snipped]
Sam Wormley
> It is the speed of the equator itself, but that's a coincidence. If the
> earth weren't rotating at all, you'd plug 12 hours into the period, and
> the radial velocity of the GPS satellite would be twice as large.
Independent of the Earth's rotation, the GPS satellites are in Keplerian
orbits with a period of about 12 sidereal hours.
>
> This is NOT the ORBITAL velocity, which of course is 3.9 kps with
> regard to a non-rotating Earth, and 0.46 kps less than that with regard
> to the ground. What we're talking about is the vector component of the
> orbital velocity toward and away from the ground observer, which is
> zero when the satellite is overhead, and maximally about 0.46 kps
> toward or away from the observer depending on whether the satellite
> (moving retrograde to the Sun and Moon) is just rising on the W horizon
> (coming toward the observer) or just sinking in the E (going away).
>
> The relevence is to the discussion with anti-relativity people who
> think radio signals from moving objects in vacuum somehow gain the
> relative velocity v, and emerge at c+v or c-v.
>
> Yes, GPS is a triangulation of times-of-flight, since if you know the
> time of signal flight t from one satellite you only know you're on the
> surface of a particular sphere of radius ct, and 2 puts you on a
> circle, 3 gives you 2 points on the circle, and 4 nails you. But if the
> satellites are all moving toward or away from you by some good fraction
> c, as compared with the accuracy of the time of flight you need to
> measure, it screws even triangulation distances like this up
> completely. My point is, that it doesn't. Nobody uses t(c+v) for the
> distance to some satellite moving toward you at radial vector velocity
> v.
>
> GPS works, and no correction is used for the direct radial velocity of
> the satellites toward or away from ground observers.
Direct radial velocity (Doppler) is used to determine the relative
velocity of the GPS receiver.... an integral part of the receiver's
PVT solution
The Ghost In The Machine
<H@>
wrote
<ijfm01d0fh067pumh...@4ax.com>:
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 03:00:06 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
> <ew...@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote:
>
>>In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson)
>><H@>
>> wrote
>>on Wed, 09 Feb 2005 21:06:48 GMT
>><gouk011urkev291rp...@4ax.com>:
>>> On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 14:50:47 GMT, "Tom Capizzi" <etian...@verizon.net>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>[snipped]
>>
>>> Tom, get it into your head, SPEED IS RELATIVE.
>>>
>>> Light moves at c relative to its source. It has no other reference.
>>
>>
>>Light also moves at c relative to whatever is measuring it.
>>Strange but true.
>
> No Ghost. The universal constant 'c' has the same value
> no matter who measures it. 'c' also happens to be the
> speed of light wrt its source. It is NOT a measure
> of OWLS generally.
So why do no scientists assume c' = c+v here?
Why are accelerators designed to compensate for the SR
mass gain?
>
>>
>>Any other, erm, flashes of brilliance? :-)
>
> I get about one every hour, Ghost.
Really?
Which star system?
>
>>
>>[rest snipped]
>
>
> HW.
> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Henri Wilson
<ew...@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote:
>In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson)
><H@>
> wrote
>on Thu, 10 Feb 2005 11:02:06 GMT
><ijfm01d0fh067pumh...@4ax.com>:
>>>
>>>> Tom, get it into your head, SPEED IS RELATIVE.
>>>>
>>>> Light moves at c relative to its source. It has no other reference.
>>>
>>>
>>>Light also moves at c relative to whatever is measuring it.
>>>Strange but true.
>>
>> No Ghost. The universal constant 'c' has the same value
>> no matter who measures it. 'c' also happens to be the
>> speed of light wrt its source. It is NOT a measure
>> of OWLS generally.
>
>So why do no scientists assume c' = c+v here?
>Why are accelerators designed to compensate for the SR
>mass gain?
There are more things in heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy
Horatio!
What is MASS, Ghost?
>
>>
>>>
>>>Any other, erm, flashes of brilliance? :-)
>>
>> I get about one every hour, Ghost.
>
>Really?
>
>Which star system?
A binary obviously.
>
>>
>>>
>>>[rest snipped]
>>
>>
>> HW.
>> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
>>
John Kennaugh
>In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson)
><H@>
> wrote
>on Wed, 09 Feb 2005 21:06:48 GMT
><gouk011urkev291rp...@4ax.com>:
>> On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 14:50:47 GMT, "Tom Capizzi" <etian...@verizon.net>
>> wrote:
>
>[snipped]
>
>> Tom, get it into your head, SPEED IS RELATIVE.
>>
>> Light moves at c relative to its source. It has no other reference.
>
>
>Light also moves at c relative to whatever is measuring it.
>Strange but true.
Absurd rather than 'strange' and not necessarily true. How can one
produce any credible causality which puts the observer in the driving
seat? Does the observer attract light towards himself at c? If so it
requires not only action-at-a-distance over vast distances but also back
through time. Maybe the light source knows who is going to observe it
and when. That rather puts god in the driving seat of every light
source.
Maybe you should ask where this dogma came from. I give you Einstein's
own explanation:
"Light is a propagated wave propagated by a medium called the Aether.
The velocity of a wave is a function of the medium which propagates it
and its velocity can only be effected by the source if the movement of
the source causes movement of the medium. Aether drag experiments,
passing light close to heavy rotating flywheels has shown that they had
no effect on the light passing close to them hence the speed of light
cannot be effected by the speed of the source.
Although the speed of light might be expected to vary with the speed
of the observer Michelson and Morley had shown that not to be the case
so it is a strange but indisputable fact that the velocity of light is
constant independent of the velocity of the source or the observer."
Infeld/Einstein - The Evolution of Physics. 1938
Now if you don't believe in the aether the simplest (only logical)
explanation of MMX is that light is source dependent. The reason there
was no fringe shift was because the geometry was fixed.
Put it another way. If there is no ether for the speed of light to be
constant w.r.t then one can explain the MMX result by either assuming
the speed of light is constant w.r.t the source or that it is constant
w.r.t the observer/detector. Because the distance between observer and
detector is fixed MMX cannot say which. Now Einstein assumed that the
speed is constant w.r.t the observer. Why? The answer is because it was
generally accepted that the speed of light is independent of the source
and if it is independent of the source and it is not constant w.r.t the
ether it must be constant w.r.t the observer.
OK why was it generally accepted that it was independent of the source.
No experiment had shown it to be so. It had been believed for nearly 200
years because everyone (except a few kooks) believed that it was
constant w.r.t the ether and therefore not influenced by the source.
Lorentz tried to rescue the wave/ether theory by hypothesising
interaction between the ether and ordinary matter (expressed
mathematically as Lorentz transforms). As his theory retained the ether
concept it also assumed source independence. Einstein followed on from
Lorentz and inherited the idea of source independence which he himself
describes as 'apparently irreconcilable' with the PoR. (The PoR itself
implies source dependency and is perfectly consistent with ballistic
theory).
What Einstein did was to ditch two axioms of physics in order to
reconcile mathematically the PoR with source independence. Why? Source
independence is a property of the ether and relativists don't believe in
the ether. Relativity is not based on the PoR as it name suggests but on
a belief in source independence which comes from a belief in the ether.
The statement in the 1938 book accurately reflects this. Essentially if
a source is surrounded by nothing which can affect the speed of light
the speed of light must be constant w.r.t. the source - there isn't
anything else. Alternatively if the speed of light is not dependent upon
the source it must be dependent upon something else and that something
else must control its speed from the moment it leaves the source - so
the source must be surrounded by something which controls the speed -
traditionally called the ether. Relativity requires each observer to
have his own ether which he is stationary w.r.t.
There are only two possibilities. Either there is no ether and light is
source dependent or there is an ether in which case it isn't. You can't
get away with saying light is not propagated in the ether at c, it is
propagated in a FoR at c. A FoR is a mathematical abstraction. Every FoR
defines the same physical space and if there is no ether that physical
space can have no properties which are relevant. If the physical space
the FoR defines has no physical properties how can the mathematical
abstraction which maps it have such properties?
Face it. Relativity is based on belief in source independence. That
belief originated and was sustained for 200 years by belief in the
ether. Lorentz rescued the ether and with it source independence.
Einstein followed from Lorentz and came up with no alternative
justification for that assumption. The belief was given a boost by
DeSitters 'evidence' from double stars. It is very easy to convince
someone when it is what they want to hear but that evidence was finally
discredited in 1965. That means that for a total of 280 years everyone
had believed in source independence - originally because of a belief in
the ether - without one shred of experimental evidence now considered
credible.
The problem came with MMX. They did not bite the bullet and say 'OK lets
accept we were wrong, there is no ether, light may behave like waves but
it isn't actually waves (Planck/photoelectric affect) at a more
fundamental level it is made up of particles so doesn't need an ether
anyway. With no ether there is no justification for assuming source
independence and it is nonsense if light is particles anyway'
The only credible evidence I am aware of comes from experiments done at
CERN in the 1960s. There is just as much evidence to the contrary if
you look for it. OTOH Far too many reputations are at stake to allow any
serious objectivity on the matter. High status physicists are in control
of what is published and what is funded and their status would be
undermined if it turned out light is after all source dependent.
>
>Any other, erm, flashes of brilliance? :-)
>
>[rest snipped]
>
--
John Kennaugh
to email convert the number from hex to decimal
Henri Wilson
Well said, John.
I would add that light is affected by various factors as it travels through the
near vacuum of space. Its speed can change from its original value. If and when
it reaches a gaseous atmosphere, it experiences extinction and approaches the
speed of light relative to the rest frame of that 'medium'.
John Kennaugh
>
>
>Well said, John.
>
>I would add that light is affected by various factors as it travels through the
>near vacuum of space. Its speed can change from its original value. If and when
>it reaches a gaseous atmosphere, it experiences extinction and approaches the
>speed of light relative to the rest frame of that 'medium'.
Rather too dogmatically stated for my taste. My argument is that the
only physical interpretation of SR is LET. There may be an ether as per
Lorentz which is why SR maths works - it is the same as LET
mathematically. Relativists hate the idea of the ether and have got
themselves in the untenable position of believing in a theory which is
based upon a property of the ether. I too don't like the idea of the
ether but I accept that that means logically light must be source
dependent. Those to me are the two options. Ether -source independence -
LET - SR, or no ether - source dependence ballistic theory. I do not
*believe* one or the other but am inclined to think the ballistic theory
is the more credible. With an ether theory the speed of light is
constant w.r.t the ether but if the ballistic theory is correct then
having left the source at c there is nothing keeping it at c relative to
the source. It can only be guaranteed to remain at c relative to the
sources FoR if there is nothing by way of matter which can affect it.
This is what you are saying.
If we consider what actually constitutes an interaction of a photon with
'matter' I think we are really saying that when a photon encounters the
field within (or near to) an atom this constitutes an 'encounter with
matter'.
What do we mean by a 'field'. Originally the ether was conceived as a
means of explaining action-at-a-distance. A magnet distorts the ether
and the stress in the ether acts on the pin and makes it move to the
magnet. This then was extended to be a medium for light to travel in
culminating in Maxwell. With an ether a 'field' is 'real' it is a
physical stress in the ether which Maxwell identified as an electrical
stress. If you produce a stress in a medium that stress can store energy
and can propagate if conditions are correct - that then is light
according to Maxwell. If you assume 'no ether' then you are assuming
that 'action-at-a-distance' just IS. That is OK because we now know that
all force ultimately acts at-a-distance it just requires a readjustment
of ones thinking. Having accepted it we no longer need to explain it by
inventing the ether. However that means that a 'field' is not 'real'. It
is a metaphysical mapping of the direction and strength of an action at
a distance force which *would* act on a charge *if* a charge was placed
there. Bang goes Maxwell. You cannot have a non-existent stress storing
real energy and propagating through a non-existent medium. Again you
have relativists inconsistency. They say there is no ether yet they
quote Maxwell's equations as if they are god given tablets of stone. At
best Maxwell's equations are describing symptoms not causes. Planck
showed they break down in some circumstance.
I have just said that an encounter between a photon and matter is in
reality an encounter between a photon and a field and I have just argued
that a 'field' does not physically exist - only action at a distance. In
order for the speed of a photon to be affected by matter, to be affected
by an electrostatic field, a photon must itself contain charge. [unless
there is some totally unknown action at a distance force]. We know that
a photon has no net charge so it must contain equal + and - charge which
brings me back to the idea that a photon consists of a massless +ve
charge and a massless -ve charge rotating about a common centre.
It is the best I can come up with. I have somewhere got the idea that
the polarisation of light can be affected by a magnetic (or was it an
electrostatic) field but cannot locate a reference.
Androcles
"John Kennaugh" <JK...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:oy2C4TEA...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
> Henri Wilson writes
>>
>>
>>Well said, John.
>>
>>I would add that light is affected by various factors as it travels
>>through the
>>near vacuum of space. Its speed can change from its original value. If
>>and when
>>it reaches a gaseous atmosphere, it experiences extinction and
>>approaches the
>>speed of light relative to the rest frame of that 'medium'.
>
> Rather too dogmatically stated for my taste. My argument is that the
> only physical interpretation of SR is LET.
That is just plain silly. The math is identical to sound, and nobody
would
seriously claim the speed of sound was invariant.
Androcles.
Henri Wilson
<JK...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>Henri Wilson writes
>>
>>
>>Well said, John.
>>
>>I would add that light is affected by various factors as it travels through the
>>near vacuum of space. Its speed can change from its original value. If and when
>>it reaches a gaseous atmosphere, it experiences extinction and approaches the
>>speed of light relative to the rest frame of that 'medium'.
>
>Rather too dogmatically stated for my taste. My argument is that the
>only physical interpretation of SR is LET. There may be an ether as per
>Lorentz which is why SR maths works - it is the same as LET
>mathematically. Relativists hate the idea of the ether and have got
>themselves in the untenable position of believing in a theory which is
>based upon a property of the ether. I too don't like the idea of the
>ether but I accept that that means logically light must be source
>dependent.
(I gather you meant 'independent' there).
I believe that local 'aether frames' can exist in the form of matter.... but
the idea of ONE absolute reference frame is surely not acceptible, even though
the maths 'works'.
>Those to me are the two options. Ether -source independence -
>LET - SR, or no ether - source dependence ballistic theory. I do not
>*believe* one or the other but am inclined to think the ballistic theory
>is the more credible. With an ether theory the speed of light is
>constant w.r.t the ether but if the ballistic theory is correct then
>having left the source at c there is nothing keeping it at c relative to
>the source. It can only be guaranteed to remain at c relative to the
>sources FoR if there is nothing by way of matter which can affect it.
>This is what you are saying.
Yes.
It is difficult to conceive of completely empty space..but that is what
essentially what lies out there. I think that light behaves increasingly more
'ballistically' as gas pressure approaches zero. Otherwise the speed of light
entering aby region containing low pressure matter will adjust its speed
towards the equilibrium speed in that matter frame. That doesn't mean that all
light within that region moves at the same speed. The degree of unification
will dependent on density.
I see nothing wrong with this concept. Nor does it seem to conflict with any
evidence.
I guess it just goes to show how little we know about the relationship between
fields, matter and action at a distance.
The acceptance of SR tends to keep physics in the dark.
>
>It is the best I can come up with. I have somewhere got the idea that
>the polarisation of light can be affected by a magnetic (or was it an
>electrostatic) field but cannot locate a reference.
I don't know about that.
Sue...
<< I think that light behaves increasingly more
'ballistically' as gas pressure approaches zero. Otherwise the speed of
light
speed
towards the equilibrium speed in that matter frame. That doesn't mean
that all
light within that region moves at the same speed. The degree of
unification
will dependent on density.
I see nothing wrong with this concept. Nor does it seem to conflict
with any
evidence. >>
Consider a universe comprised of only two hydrogen atoms. You would
have
the electon orbits synchronized at any distance, by photonic (Coulomb ?
) coupling such
that a mid-point observer ( aka problematic vacuum impurity ) would see
the atoms as mirror images at any instant in tiime ?
? means putting words in your mouth. LOL
Anyway... that is my idea of low gas pressure and the "thought model"
is in agreement with yours. I am not sure we could compute a fine
structrue
constant for a universe with only two hydrogen atoms, but if we could,
it would
cast doubt whether the coupling could be intantaneous.
Sue...
Androcles
"Sue..." <suzyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1108939067.7...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
The mid-point observer is "god" and is not part of the universe,
and (s)he is free to wander to any part of it. (S)he is also a point,
having no volume and cannot interact in any way, merely observe.
(S)he is the computer program that displays the model for us to
observe the universe (s)he creates under our direction.
Now write such a program. That CAN be done, and the "laws"
of physics can be changed on our whim.
If you want the coupling be instantaneous, it will be (within the
limitations of the speed of the computer hardware, which is
theoretically and for all practical purposes infinitely fast).
By writing sequential instructions, you are inherently creating
cause before effect. Even that can be simulated out by randomly
jumping to routines that have inappropriate data.
If you want a delay in the coupling, program it in.
If you want time dilation or length contraction between FoRs,
have it.
If you want aether, add it to control the delay under the laws
of permittivity and permeability you create.
The smallest program you write will be known as "Occam".
Now see who can simulate the two atom universe with the least
amount of code, using common code for display and human
interface purposes.
Improve the simulation with 3 atoms, then 4, and so on.
Ultimately you'll have "Deep Thought" and the answer will be 42.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/hitchhikers/guide/answer.shtml
Androcles.
Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com
GPS assumes constant c but then corrects for doppler phase shift. Same
result
as using c+v, really.
COMMENT:
You don't know what you're talking about. GPS may correct for phase
shift of frequency, but it uses time-of-flight of what is essentially a
time-stamp signal. And it calculates distance from time of flight and
speed of signal, which it presumes to be c. Not c+v or c-v. Just c.
SBH
Jerry
When light traveling at c+v enters atmosphere and experiences
extinction, so that it approaches the speed of light in air, it should
experience refraction. Snell's Law necessarily applies.
n_i * sin(theta_i) = n_r * sin(theta_r)
The rotational velocity of Algol is, I believe, something on the order
of 65 km/s. So c+/-v ranges from 1.00022c to 0.99978c depending on
whether the stellar component is approaching or receding from us. The
refractive index of air is about 1.0008 .
Let us assume we are viewing Algol at an angle of 45 degrees from the
zenith. According to Snell's law, the viewing angle of the components
of Algol from the zenith should vary from
44°56'29.88" to 44°58'0.50"
depending on whether the component is approaching or receding from us,
and the components of Algol should be resolvable in the vertical
direction by as much as 3 minutes of arc.
This prediction of ballistic theory has never been observed.
Could you explain why Snell's Law does not apply to ballistic light?
Jerry
Henri Wilson
It would cause Einstein lovers to incorrectly calculate the orbit.
>
>Could you explain why Snell's Law does not apply to ballistic light?
That is an interesting question. ..and not just because you are assuming the
answer you want. I recently asked a similar one in relation to light refracted
in a prism (velocity dependent) and light diffracted by a grating (velocity
independent).
As far as we know, Snell's law only applies to light that is traveling at the
equilibrium speed for the two mediums involved and when both are mutually at
rest.
Space has no absolute reference frame and NO equilibrium speed. All we know is
that light in pure vacuum moves at c wrt its source.
There is really no reason to believe that light entering the Earth's atmosphere
at c+v (where v is the velocity of Earth wrt the source) will actually end up
traveling at c/n wrt Earth (n is the refractive index of the atmosphere). It
could just as easily be (c+v)/n.
Estimates of extinction rates are just that...'estimates'. Nobody has ever
measured OWLS even in ONE medium, let alone two adjacent ones.
>
>Jerry
Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com
velocity of the GPS receiver.... an integral part of the receiver's
PVT solution <<
COMMENT:
Boloney! That's what you THINK should happen, but you're quite wrong.
The most common method of extracting GPS ranging data starts with a
matrix calculation of 4 or more "code pseudoranges" which are basically
calculated by subtracting the code clocktime on the satellite minus the
code clocktime at the receiver, and multiplying by c (You could use 3
satellites for 3 spacial unknowns, but if you use 4 satellites, you
don't need an atomic clock at the receiver-- the receiver clock error
becomes just one more unknown). That gives the pseudoranges which are
the correct ranges minus an error which depends on satellite clock
errors only. There is no correction for doppler effects or radial
velocity effects in the code pseudorange calculation. One can calculate
range changes by phase shifts, but these are not needed, and in any
case they need to be corrected periodically by code-range data,
everytime satellite lock is lost (if you're counting identical carrier
beat-cycles, obviously you go back to square one every time you lose
signal).
Here, read how it's done. Note use of "c" in code pseudorange
calculations.
Jerry
> The refractive index of air is about 1.0008 .
Whoops! I misread a "3" for an "8" in my source. The refractive index
is air is about 1.0003, not 1.0008. Doesn't invalidate my basic
argument, however. Ballistic theory predicts effects that are never
observed.
Jerry.
Jerry
Do you realize that you are claiming that prisms are incapable of
detecting Doppler-shifted light?
>From what we know of how light is propagated in a medium, there is
every reason to believe that the velocity is c/n rather than your
hypothetical (c+v)/n.
Loosely speaking, electrons in a transparent material oscillate while
the light is present. This oscillation momentarily absorbs the light,
and then coherently re-radiates it. The result is to slow down the
light wave without leaving energy behind. Every electron in the medium
can be considered an independent source of light emitted at a velocity
of c.
Read any first-year physics textbook to learn the classical treatment
of this phenomenon.
> Estimates of extinction rates are just that...'estimates'. Nobody
has ever
> measured OWLS even in ONE medium, let alone two adjacent ones.
You pile epicycle upon epicycle to your ballistic theory to try to
explain away embarrassing inconsistencies...
Jerry
Franz Heymann
"Sue..." <suzyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1108939067.7...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> 'ballistically' as gas pressure approaches zero. Otherwise the speed
of
> light
> entering any region containing low pressure matter will adjust its
> speed
> towards the equilibrium speed in that matter frame. That doesn't
mean
> that all
> light within that region moves at the same speed. The degree of
> unification
> will dependent on density.
> I see nothing wrong with this concept.
I do.
At the classical level, it is in contradiction with Maxwell's
equations, according to which
v = c / sqrt (eps*mu), with no adjustment times anywhere in sight.
At the quantum level, a photon always moves with a speed c, even in
matter.
What looks like a slower photon is in reality a succession of photons
absorbed and re-emitted coherently but with a changed phase
> Nor does it seem to conflict
> with any
> evidence.
Nobody has bothered to look, since it would be a clear waste of time
to do so, because the passage of light through transparent media is
already fully understood in all its gory details.
> Consider a universe comprised of only two hydrogen atoms. You would
> have
> the electon orbits
In the ground state, the electron is not in an orbit.
> synchronized at any distance,
What is it which you consider to be synchronised?
> by photonic
> (Coulomb ? ) coupling such
> that a mid-point observer ( aka problematic vacuum impurity ) would
see
> the atoms as mirror images at any instant in tiime ?
I thought you said the world consists of only 2 atoms. Lets grant you
an observer as well. But then the question still remains: What does
he use for observing the atoms?
You have buggered up the attribution marks, so I don't know where you
stopped and someone else started, so I'll stop here.
[snip]
I don't guarantee that I will answer any reply you may make, unless
you learn how to handle the attributions. Every thread you touch is
turned into crap as things stand.
--
Franz
"The great tragedy of science -- the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis
by an ugly fact."
T.H. Huxley
Androcles
"Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" <sbha...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:1108954373.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Tut tut...
There is no "true" or "false" in logic. Just valid or invalid.
If the speed of mosquitoes is 5 fps in all frames of reference,
then it travels 80 ft in the ground frame for 16 seconds and
40 ft in the moving ladder frame carried by Sam and Joe
in 8 seconds because the ladder is moving at 3 fps.
Proof:
tau = (t-vx/c^2) / sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
xi = (x-vt) / sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
tau = (16 - 3 * 80 / 25) / sqrt(1 - 9/25)
= 8
xi = (80 - 3 * 16) / 0.8
= 40.
v = tau/xi = 40/8 = 5.
The ladder is 32 ft long when it was not moving.
Thus the speed of mosquitoes is PROVEN to be 5 fps
in all frames of reference, validly.
If it were not valid, it would have to travel 32 feet in
16 seconds at (c-v) = 5-3 fps.
v = x/t = xi/tau because either c is a universal constant
and invariant OR x and t are invariant.
He's left all the hints to see if anyone catches on:
Things should be as simple as possible, [but] NOT simpler.
http://rescomp.stanford.edu/~cheshire/EinsteinQuotes.html
That is the beauty of Einstein's genius, but I think 100 years
is long enough for one joke.
Pity he didn't contribute anything to physics or mathematics,
even if he gave a gold mine to psychologists.
I just wondered if anyone else would catch on.
Looks like you have. :-)
Androcles.
Uncle Al
[snip crap]
> Androcles.
<http://www.google.com/search?q=Androcles+fumble+site%3Ausers.pandora.be>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/EnergyConservation.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/HopeThatHelps.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PrizeYours.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/CoverUp.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/GDefence.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/OneDim.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Gullible.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/RelativityCancer.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Androrgasm.html>
Androcyst is a spewing psychotic idiot troll.
Why are you having so much trouble with basic algebra?
Let L = distance between Sam and Joe, as measured in the stationary
frame.
Let L' = distance between Sam and Joe, as measured in the moving
frame.
Let v = speed of Sam and Joe, as measured in the stationary frame
(with Joe in front of Sam).
Let L_1 = distance light travels in going from Sam to Joe, as
measured in the stationary frame.
Let L_1' = distance light travels in going from Sam to Joe, as
measured in the moving frame.
Let T_1 = time light travels in going from Sam to Joe, as measured in
the stationary frame.
Let T_1' = time light travels in going from Sam to Joe, as measured
in the moving frame.
Let L_2 = distance light travels in going from Joe to Sam, as
measured in the stationary frame.
Let L_2' = distance light travels in going from Joe to Sam, as
measured in the moving frame.
Let T_2 = time light travels in going from Joe to Sam, as measured in
the stationary frame.
Let T_2' = time light travels in going from Joe to Sam, as measured
in the moving frame.
What people are saying to you is that
1) L_1 = cL/(c-v)
2) L_1/T_1 = c
3) L_1' = L'
4) L_1'/T_1' = c
5) L_2 = cL/(c+v)
6) L_2/T_2 = c
7) L_2' = L'
8) L_2'/T_2' = c
So
L_1 is *not* equal to L_2
L_1 is *not* equal to L
L_1 is *not* equal to L'
L_1 is *not* equal to L_1'
L_2 is *not* equal to L
L_2 is *not* equal to L'
L_2 is *not* equal to L_2'
T_1 is *not* equal to T_2
T_1 is *not* equal to L/c
T_1 is *not* equal to L'/c
T_1 is *not* equal to T_1'
T_2 is *not* equal to L/c
T_2 is *not* equal to L'/c
T_2 is *not* equal to T_2'
On the other hand,
L_1' is equal to L_2'
L_1' is equal to L'
L_2' is equal to L'
T_1' is equal to T_2'
T_1' is equal to L'/c
T_2' is equal to L'/c
Is there yet another way for you to misunderstand?
Einstein:
稼tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] =
tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
Taking a = x, b = t + x'/(c-v), the functional equation above becomes:
tau(0,0,0,b-a/(c-v)) + tau(0,0,0,b+a/(c+v)) = 2 tau(a,0,0,b).
Defining the function F(k) = 2 tau(0,0,0,k), it then follows that
tau(a,0,0,b) = F(b-a/(c-v)) + F(b+a/(c+v)).
Conversely, taking a = 0 in the equation above, it follows that
tau(0,0,0,b) = F(b) + F(b) = 2F(b).
Therefore, the general solution to the functional equation above is:
tau(a,0,0,b) = F(b-a/(c-v)) + F(b+a/(c+v))
where F is otherwise arbitrary.
(Further restrictions cited in the paper then narrow down the function
F(x); this also shows that the assumption in the paper of
differentiability is entirely superfluous. The derivation above
proceeds without any assumption about tau being differentiable or even
continuous.)
Thus, going back to Einstein's notation with x' = x - vt, it follows
that
tau(x-vt,0,0,t) = F((ct-x)/(c-v)) + F((ct+x)/(c-v))
which shows that the natural coordinates that enter into play are ct-x
and ct+x.
In terms of these the Lorentz transformation simplifies substantially:
ct-x -> sqrt((c+v)/(c-v)) (ct-x)
ct+x -> sqrt((c-v)/(c+v)) (ct+x)
involving, respectively, a blue shift and red shift factor and
directly representing the Relativistic Doppler effect.
If two Lorentz transformation are done along the x axis at velocities
v1 and v2 respectively, then the factors would multiple:
sqrt((c+v1)/(c-v1)) sqrt((c+v2)/(c-v2))
which reduces to a Lorentz transform with a velocity v given by:
sqrt((c+v)/(c-v)) = sqrt((c+v1)/(c-v1)) sqrt((c+v2)/(c-v2))
Solving this for v, you get:
v = (v1 + v2)/(1 + v1 v2/c^2)
So the velocity addition rule becomes the addition rule for the
"rapidity":
u = c/2 ln((c+v)/(c-v))
with
u = u1 + u2.
Rapidity and velocity are virtually identical. For a vessel going at
v= 3km/second,
|v - u| ~~ 6 microns/second.
Therefore, velocities (redefined as rapidities) add as usual in
Relativity, as well as in Newtonian physics.
Hey idiot Androcles,
<http://www.google.com/search?q=Androcles+fumble+site%3Ausers.pandora.be>
reposting the same idiot drool that has been so thoroughly, utterly
publicly discredited by those who can do math (e.g., Randy Poe, in
disgustingly punctilious counterpoint) merely demonstrates what an
intractible idiot you are.
Empirical physical reality casts the only votes that count. Your
idiot spew is falsified by trivial empirical observation. You are a
psychotic ineducable idiot.
Where are your citations, idiot Androcles? Where are your literature
references, idiot Androcles? Where is your empirical observational
support, idiot Androcles? You drown in explicit empirical
falsfification, idiot Androcles. Your ignorance, incompetence, and
psychosis are not of interest to the world at large. Quite the
contrary. You are not even an interesting laughingstock.
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html>
Hafele-Keating experiment. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
Nature 425 374 (2003)
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/>
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
<http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf>
Relativity in the GPS system. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
<http://www.weburbia.demon.co.uk/physics/experiments.html>
Experimental constraints on General Relativity. You are fucked,
idiot Androcles.
Science 303(5661) 1143;1153 (2004)
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071
Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries. You are fucked, idiot
Androcles.
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
<http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html>
Mathematics of gravitation. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
http://www.hep.upenn.edu/~max/toe.html
You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
http://www.iancgbell.clara.net/maths/spctime.htm
You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
<http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/Fields2.pdf>
You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
Idiot Androcles is a eunuch in a brothel, a capon in a henhouse, a
steer amidst cows; a stot, a gelding, a gelt, a havier, a gib, a
lapin, a seg, a hog, a wether... a butt-fucked psychotic idiot spewing
in a science newsgroup.
Androcyst and logs:
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LogsHuh.html
Androcyst and vectors:
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/IdiotVectors.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AndroVec.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/VectorLength.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/VectorSpaces.html
Androcyst and limits:
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NegativeInfinity.html
Androcyst and equations:
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Pythagoras2.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SetSolve2.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Persuasive.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AndroDistri.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Pythagoras.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ToothlessBite.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Competent.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/UseTrans.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Sheesh.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SetSolve.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/DivZero.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Think.html
Androcyst and square roots:
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/STILL.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/CanSpecify.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Nearly.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Quadratic.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/GrowUp.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Tautology.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Material.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/GIVEN.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PythagoRescue.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SqrtRev.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NegSqrt.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SqrtAnswers.html
Androcyst and exclusive ors:
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Gibberish.html
Androcyst and partial differential equations:
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PartialDiff.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PartialDiff2.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PartialDiff3.html>
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
Uncle Al
Sue...
... we may have to chip in and get him some serious drugs to keep him
from frothing all over the ng till the data is released.
Ya have to understand the anybody guilable enough to think those links
will
ever be clicked also could believe in faith based physics and causality
violation.
Sue...
Androcles
Yeah, he's none too bright. He thinks winter is at apogee.
Androcles.
Henri Wilson
Sue...
<< What is matter? >>
A smidgin less than a baryon but a pinch more than a lepton.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/parint.html
IOW... I dunno.
:o)
Sue...
Henri Wilson
No. The real question is this: are the angles of refraction or diffraction
dependent on light speed?
Nobody has tried to find the answer to that.
It is to be expected that light entering the atmosphere at a particular angle
will be refracted by the same amount no matter what its relative speed.
Diffraction by a grating should also be independent of light speed, being a
function of wavelength only.
>
>>From what we know of how light is propagated in a medium, there is
>every reason to believe that the velocity is c/n rather than your
>hypothetical (c+v)/n.
>
>Loosely speaking, electrons in a transparent material oscillate while
>the light is present. This oscillation momentarily absorbs the light,
>and then coherently re-radiates it. The result is to slow down the
>light wave without leaving energy behind. Every electron in the medium
>can be considered an independent source of light emitted at a velocity
>of c.
>
>Read any first-year physics textbook to learn the classical treatment
>of this phenomenon.
The classical treatment assumes light moves at c.
It is inadequate.
>
>> Estimates of extinction rates are just that...'estimates'. Nobody
>has ever
>> measured OWLS even in ONE medium, let alone two adjacent ones.
>
>You pile epicycle upon epicycle to your ballistic theory to try to
>explain away embarrassing inconsistencies...
The ballistic theory stands up to all criticism.
Why should it not? It is obviously correct.
>
>Jerry
Sam Wormley
Keep in mind that most GPS receivers employ "smoothing filters" and so
instantaneous velocity reading during acceleration is not necessarily
accurate. However at constant velocity (and assuming no obstruction of
signals), the GPS receiver will likely measure velocity to an accuracy
of 0.2 m/s (0.7 kph) 2drms.
Ref: Misra & Enge "GPS: Signals, Measurements, and Performance" (2001)
Sec. 5.2.1 (pgs 196-197) Velocity Estimation
"The relative motion of a satellite and the user results in changes in
the observed frequency of the satellite signal. This Doppler shift is
measured routinely in the carrier tracking loop of a GPS receiver
[Section 9.6]. Given the satellite velocity, the Doppler shift can be
used to estimate the user velocity. The Doppler shift, or equivalently,
the range rate [Section 1.3.3], can be written as a projection of the
relative velocity vector on the satellite line-of-sight vector. The
measurement, however, is biased by the receiver clock bias rate (i.e.,
frequency offset), and what's actually measured is the pseudorange
rate.
"The delta pseudoranges obtained from carrier phase measurements are
proportional to the average pseudorange rates or the line-of-sight
velocity of the user relative to the satellite over the time interval.
The model for pseudorange rates can be obtained by differentiating
(5.1). It is left as an exercise to show that
[equation 5.28 is true]
where v_sup(k) [a vector quantity] is the satellite velocity vector,
known from the navigational message broadcast by the satellite; v is
the user velocity vector, to be estimated. Both v_sup(k) and v are
expressed in the ECEF coordinate frame. The user-to-satellite unit
vector 1_sup(k) is determined from an estimate of the user position;
b_dot is the bias of the receiver clock (m/s), and the
epsilon_sub_phi_sup(k) denotes the combined error doe to changes during
the measurement interval in the satellite clock, ionosphere and
troposphere. Note that the velocity of an object attached to the earth
is zero in the ECEF coordinate frame.
"The principal source of error in (5.28) throughout the 1990s was the
satellite clock frequency dithering due to SA. Now with SA gone, the
remaining errors arise from changes in the ionospheric and tropospheric
delays and in multipath, and are generally small. Problems, however,
can arise if the user dynamics are excessive. The delta ranges give
only average velocity over a time interval. High accelerations and
jerks would clearly be problematic. The PPS performance specifications
for velocity estimation (0.1 m/s rms in any direction; 0.2 m/s 2drms)
are based on a constant-velocity scenario [JPO(1991)].
"Equation (5.28) is linear in user velocity components, and can be
rewitten...
the combined set of measurements from K satellites can be written as a
set of equations compactly in matrix notation as
[equation 5.29]
where matrix G characterizes the user-satellite geometry, as defined
previously (5.10). It is interesting that the problem of estimation of
user velocity based on pseudorange rates is identical in structure to
that of estimation of user position from pseudoranges (5.9). A
least-squares solution and the DOP parameters can be defined, as
before, and related to the rms error in these estimates".
Henri Wilson
<notfranz...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
>"Sue..." <suzyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>news:1108939067.7...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> << I think that light behaves increasingly more
>> 'ballistically' as gas pressure approaches zero. Otherwise the speed
>of
>> light
>> entering any region containing low pressure matter will adjust its
>> speed
>> towards the equilibrium speed in that matter frame. That doesn't
>mean
>> that all
>> light within that region moves at the same speed. The degree of
>> unification
>> will dependent on density.
>> I see nothing wrong with this concept.
>
>I do.
>At the classical level, it is in contradiction with Maxwell's
>equations, according to which
>v = c / sqrt (eps*mu), with no adjustment times anywhere in sight.
How do you know the measured values of eps and mu are not dependent on observer
speed through the medium?
You don't.
>At the quantum level, a photon always moves with a speed c, even in
>matter.
That's an assumption.
>What looks like a slower photon is in reality a succession of photons
>absorbed and re-emitted coherently but with a changed phase
If we had any idea what the terms 'wavelength', 'frequency' and 'phase' imply
as regards light, we could probably be a little more specific about that.
>
>
>> Nor does it seem to conflict
>> with any
>> evidence.
>
>Nobody has bothered to look, since it would be a clear waste of time
>to do so, because the passage of light through transparent media is
>already fully understood in all its gory details.
It is not at all understood in the high vacuum of space.
Light is emitted at c relative to its source, eg., a star.
Nothing is known about the mechanisms that alter that speed as it traverses
space.
>
>> Consider a universe comprised of only two hydrogen atoms. You would
>> have
>> the electon orbits
I didn't write that Heymann.
You have your quotes mixed.
>
>In the ground state, the electron is not in an orbit.
>
>> synchronized at any distance,
>
>What is it which you consider to be synchronised?
>
>> by photonic
>> (Coulomb ? ) coupling such
>> that a mid-point observer ( aka problematic vacuum impurity ) would
>see
>> the atoms as mirror images at any instant in tiime ?
>
>I thought you said the world consists of only 2 atoms. Lets grant you
>an observer as well. But then the question still remains: What does
>he use for observing the atoms?
>
>You have buggered up the attribution marks, so I don't know where you
>stopped and someone else started, so I'll stop here.
You stuffed up Heymann.
>
>[snip]
>
>I don't guarantee that I will answer any reply you may make, unless
>you learn how to handle the attributions. Every thread you touch is
>turned into crap as things stand.
Henri Wilson
<sbha...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
It makes little difference which one you use. The satellite moves only about
1cm in that kind of time difference. That's the order of the error you will get
if you use c+v.
>
>SBH
Henri Wilson
>Androcles wrote:
>[snip crap]
>
>> Androcles.
>
><http://www.google.com/search?q=Androcles+fumble+site%3Ausers.pandora.be>
Your 4000 line crap is no more impressive than your one line crap.
Why bother?
Sue...
you learn how to handle the attributions. Every thread you touch is
turned into crap as things stand. >>
Sue...
Jerry
> The ballistic theory stands up to all criticism.
>
> Why should it not? It is obviously correct.
You forgot the prefix "in-" in front of the "correct".
Jerry
Henri Wilson
Jerry
.
<snip>
.
> It is to be expected that light entering the atmosphere at a
particular angle
> will be refracted by the same amount no matter what its relative
speed.
No matter how highly red-shifted or blue-shifted the light, it always
emerges from a prism at the exact same angle as light from a stationary
source? Prisms are useless for detecting Doppler shift?
.
> Diffraction by a grating should also be independent of light speed,
being a
> function of wavelength only.
No matter how highly red-shifted or blue-shifted the light, it always
emerges from a diffraction grating at the exact same angle as light
from a stationary source? Diffraction gratings are useless for
detecting Doppler shift?
.
<snip>
.
Jerry
.
(Excess periods are an attempt to prevent Google Groups from messing up
my attribution marks. Let's see if they work...)
Jerry
> It is to be expected that light entering the atmosphere at a
particular angle
> will be refracted by the same amount no matter what its relative
speed.
> Diffraction by a grating should also be independent of light speed,
being a
> function of wavelength only.
You have two dye lasers, the first tuned to 600 nm, the second tuned to
606 nm.
You allow both lasers to shine at an angle 45 degrees from normal onto
a sheet of glass (refractive index 1.600 at 600 nm with dispersion
delta_n/delta_lambda = -0.00008/nm), and measure the refracted angles
of the two beams to be 26.2278 and 26.2363 degrees.
You allow both lasers to shine normal to a grating with lines spaced
1000 nm apart, and measure the first order diffraction angles of the
beams to be 36.87 and 37.30 degrees.
Now, send the first laser away from you at a velocity of 0.01c.
1) What will be the refracted angle for light from the traveling laser?
2) What will be the measured first order diffraction angle for light
from the traveling laser?
According to your statement above, it appears the answer should be
22.2278 degrees refracted angle, and 36.87 degrees diffraction angle.
According to source dependency theory as interpreted by Henry Wilson,
neither prisms nor gratings are capable of detecting Doppler shift.
Source dependency theory is disproven by trivial observation.
(Note that spectroscopic gratings on the HST work as designed.
Extinction effects have nothing to do with explaining the discrepancy
between source dependency theory and observed fact.)
Jerry
Henri Wilson
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>.
><snip>
>.
>> It is to be expected that light entering the atmosphere at a
>particular angle
>> will be refracted by the same amount no matter what its relative
>speed.
>.
>No matter how highly red-shifted or blue-shifted the light, it always
>emerges from a prism at the exact same angle as light from a stationary
>source? Prisms are useless for detecting Doppler shift?
There you go!
Just like I said.
Refraction angle is independent of light speed.
>.
>> Diffraction by a grating should also be independent of light speed,
>being a
>> function of wavelength only.
>.
>No matter how highly red-shifted or blue-shifted the light, it always
>emerges from a diffraction grating at the exact same angle as light
>from a stationary source? Diffraction gratings are useless for
>detecting Doppler shift?
There you go!
Just like I said.
Diffraction angle is independent of light speed.
>.
><snip>
>.
>Jerry
>.
>(Excess periods are an attempt to prevent Google Groups from messing up
>my attribution marks. Let's see if they work...)
Jerry
Read Henri's statements and weep.
'nuff said.
Jerry
Henri Wilson
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>
>> It is to be expected that light entering the atmosphere at a
>particular angle
>> will be refracted by the same amount no matter what its relative
>speed.
>> Diffraction by a grating should also be independent of light speed,
>being a
>> function of wavelength only.
>
>You have two dye lasers, the first tuned to 600 nm, the second tuned to
>606 nm.
>
>You allow both lasers to shine at an angle 45 degrees from normal onto
>a sheet of glass (refractive index 1.600 at 600 nm with dispersion
>delta_n/delta_lambda = -0.00008/nm), and measure the refracted angles
>of the two beams to be 26.2278 and 26.2363 degrees.
>
>You allow both lasers to shine normal to a grating with lines spaced
>1000 nm apart, and measure the first order diffraction angles of the
>beams to be 36.87 and 37.30 degrees.
>
>Now, send the first laser away from you at a velocity of 0.01c.
>
>1) What will be the refracted angle for light from the traveling laser?
>2) What will be the measured first order diffraction angle for light
>from the traveling laser?
>
>According to your statement above, it appears the answer should be
>22.2278 degrees refracted angle, and 36.87 degrees diffraction angle.
My statement was more of a question than an answer.
I don't know the answer and we don't really know what 'light wavelength' is, I
doubt if anyone else does either.
Your own claims are based on the assumption that light always moves at c wrt
the prism or grating.
We, the enlightened, know that doppler shift is a result of relative light
speed NOT being c.
>
>According to source dependency theory as interpreted by Henry Wilson,
>neither prisms nor gratings are capable of detecting Doppler shift.
Are you trying to tell me that a prism can tell us if light of a particular
wavelength has come from a moving source or not?
Place a narrow band filter in front of a prism. Say it lets through light of
0.6u.
Now focus 'white' starlight on it.
Are you trying to make out the light will be refracted by different amounts
depending on the speed of the source?
If so, you should renounce your allegiance to SR.
>
>Source dependency theory is disproven by trivial observation.
You are proven wrong with your false logic.
>
>(Note that spectroscopic gratings on the HST work as designed.
>Extinction effects have nothing to do with explaining the discrepancy
>between source dependency theory and observed fact.)
In your dreams boy.
>
>Jerry
Sue...
It looks like Henri is keeping some good company.
<< When these spectra are examined, they are found to be shifted toward
the red end of the spectrum. This shift is ***apparently*** a Doppler
shift and indicates that essentially all of the galaxies are moving
away from us. >>
<< Measured Doppler red shifts give the recession velocity of stars or
galaxies, ***presuming*** that the Hubble law is valid. >>
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/redshf.html
Sue...
Randy Poe
Henri Wilson wrote:
> On 21 Feb 2005 20:02:52 -0800, "Jerry"
<Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >Henri Wilson wrote:
> >.
> ><snip>
> >.
> >> It is to be expected that light entering the atmosphere at a
> >particular angle
> >> will be refracted by the same amount no matter what its relative
> >speed.
> >.
> >No matter how highly red-shifted or blue-shifted the light, it
always
> >emerges from a prism at the exact same angle as light from a
stationary
> >source? Prisms are useless for detecting Doppler shift?
>
> There you go!
> Just like I said.
> Refraction angle is independent of light speed.
Snell's law arises geometrically, from considering what
happens to different portions of a wavefront arriving
at an interface at speed c1 and leaving at speed c2.
For purely geometric reasons, sin(theta1)/sin(theta2)
= c1/c2.
So what you are saying is that when light transitions
into a medium with index of refraction n, then light
which was moving at speed (c+v) in vacuum moves at
speed (c+v)/n in the medium.
Would you care to go into how this happens?
> >> Diffraction by a grating should also be independent of light
speed,
> >being a
> >> function of wavelength only.
> >.
> >No matter how highly red-shifted or blue-shifted the light, it
always
> >emerges from a diffraction grating at the exact same angle as light
> >from a stationary source? Diffraction gratings are useless for
> >detecting Doppler shift?
>
> There you go!
> Just like I said.
> Diffraction angle is independent of light speed.
Diffraction angle is governed by the relation between
grating spacing and wavelength.
Are you saying that light of a given frequency has the
same wavelength whether it is moving at c or c+v? Are
you familiary with the relationship between speed,
frequency and wavelength?
- Randy
Androcles
"This is the kind of result one would expect for an expanding universe."
My refrigerator contains eggs.
This is the kind of result one would expect for a bright green
egg-laying flying elephant.
Androcles.
Sue...
Expanding or contracting doesn't matter. Any motion of interacting
matter on the path other than the emitter makes it impossible to
separate the emitter's doppler from the other matter's doppler.
I.E.
Given the sum of two numbers is 4, what is the first number ?
(not to suggest that the calulation is a simple sum of course. )
And... corpuscular luck shots unwelcomed. Henri explained that well in
another post, that even the folks at VLTI. Paranal. would like.
Sue...
Androcles
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
news:hg4n119nif82luevf...@4ax.com...
> My statement was more of a question than an answer.
> I don't know the answer and we don't really know what 'light
> wavelength' is, I
> doubt if anyone else does either.
Egads, H!
A mosquito beats it wings and has an audible frequency.
A plane beats its propellor and has an audible frequency.
A helicopter beats its blades and has an audible frequency.
When the plane is stationary it has no wavelength.
When the plane is moving it screws through the air.
The thread formed by the screwing is the wavelength.
The greater the speed, the greater the wavelength.
The greater the frequency, the .... hmm...
c = wf if and only if the aether is not being blown downwards
by the helicopter blades, which is what happens when the helicopter
is hovering.
Without aether, the mosquito can still beat its wings and
the plane can screw its way through space. You can still
hand throw mosquitoes. So...
w = c/f
f is whatever the throttle is set to and proportional to fuel
flow, h, or energy.
E = hf.
We cannot write f = c/w, the helicopter might be hovering
and c = 0. We can, however, write w = c/f.
Guardian angels like Gabriel have huge shoulder wings
to lift people against gravity out of harm's way (like a
helicopter), but prayer-carrying winged messenger
angels like Mercury have little ankle wings to propel
them through the aether. Like a Wright Flier, the
propellors face backwards.
The gospel according to St. Hubble (new testament) is based
on the book of Aether (old testament).
The Relativity of St. Einstein the Divine is where you'll
find "Apocolypse Now" with four horsemen, one riding
a pale horse. Helicopters playing Wagner's "Ride of the
Valkyries", right? Ask Paul Andersen, he was a Viking
before he converted to relativanity, becoming born-again.
He'd know all about Nordic gods, Christmas trees and
decking the halls with boughs of holly.
Study Darwin's "Origin of Species" and you see that tick
fairies, winged messengers, cherubs and guardian angels
are all descended from a common ancestor, St. George,
patron saint of England and dragon slayer, and they evolved
just as helicopters and humming birds evolved from
mosquitoes.
I'd have thought anyone from Oz would know all about
Darwin, you named a port after him.
What about those red shoes Dorothy stole and took back
to Kansas, eh?
Foot propellers, they are.
If you want to be a heretic, at least know the bible you are
hereticking fairies against.
Androcles
Androcles
>
> Expanding or contracting doesn't matter. Any motion of interacting
> matter on the path other than the emitter makes it impossible to
> separate the emitter's doppler from the other matter's doppler.
>
> I.E.
> Given the sum of two numbers is 4, what is the first number ?
> (not to suggest that the calulation is a simple sum of course. )
Hmm....
Definition: A vector space, V, over a field F, is a set for which the
following 10 axioms hold. For all v, w, x X V, and all l,m X F
1: v + w X V
2: (v + w) + x = v + (w + x)
3: there exist the element 0 X V such that: v + 0 = 0 + v = v
4: for all v there exists -v such that v + (-v) = 0
5: v + w = w + v
These first 5 axioms imply that the binary operation of addition +: V x
V -> V forms an abelian group -
1: implies the mapping is closed (it wouldn't be a mapping if it
wasn't!)
2: implies addition is associative
3: there exists an identity
4: says every element has an inverse
5: addition is commutative (the parallelogram rule) - this fith axiom is
what makes the group abelian.
x+y =4, the first number and the second number are commutative,
so it must be the second.
>
> And... corpuscular luck shots unwelcomed. Henri explained that well in
> another post, that even the folks at VLTI. Paranal. would like.
I didn't read it. Perhaps H was talking to Andersen, and that bores me.
It's all one-liners that are not funny. 500 posts to not get a single
point
across. Yeuch. What's a luck shot?
I've never heard of VLTI. Paranal. Who are they and who needs virtual
long telescopes?
Androcles.
Sue...
Indeed... It IS the second, except when it is the first or neither one.
AE would be proud of ya because there is no disproving your proof,
whatever you choose to let it represent. ;-)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=VLTI.+Paranal&btnG=Google+Search
Somewhere deep in the bowels of that machine a photon interfers
withself.
If it can interact with all four of those mirrors equally. what else do
ya 'spose it did a little dosey doe with on it's long journey?
Children get grumpy past their bedtime and your sums proof sounds like
Big Ben chiming your bedtime.
Sue...
Androcles
of the days before Greenpeace thought it might be a good
idea not to kill all the fish before we eat them. Some silly
politicians actually listened and sewage treatment plants
were born.
When a wave breaks on the beach, water rushes up the pipes,
all four simultaneously. Why is that? Was it the dozey dough
or the little lambs eating ivy?
I prefer 'em with mint sauce, myself.
Androcles
Sue...
Does eat oats!
<<They are all very similar. They are danced by a team of four and are
the only Highland Dances danced by more than one person. The four weave
in and out in a figure-of-eight pattern, sometimes performing what it
called a propell-pivot, the forerunner of the square-dancing dosey-doe.
Supposedly, this dance was performed in the church aisle in an attempt
to stay warm on cold mornings. >>
http://www.savannahscottishgames.com/dancing.htm
Well ... at least I thwarted you anticipated attempt to dismiss matter
/ EM interaction along the path on the basis that Hilbert's corpuscles
will be lucky enough to avoid most of the mattter.
Eh? If those four VLTI mirrors were each as big as Aricibo, do ya think
one photon would still be big enough to cover all four mirrors ? ;-)
Sue...
Henri Wilson
Androcles
>
> Does eat oats!
Dozey totes! Akiddley divy two.
And what kind of light is "dornserly" ?
>
> <<They are all very similar. They are danced by a team of four and are
> the only Highland Dances danced by more than one person. The four
> weave
> in and out in a figure-of-eight pattern, sometimes performing what it
> called a propell-pivot, the forerunner of the square-dancing
> dosey-doe.
> Supposedly, this dance was performed in the church aisle in an attempt
> to stay warm on cold mornings. >>
> http://www.savannahscottishgames.com/dancing.htm
Prolly would be. Needs lots a porridge too.
Porridge is scottish food. Oats, I think.
This is the song.
HA! whaur ye gaun, ye crowlin ferlie?
Your impudence protects you sairly;
I canna say but ye strunt rarely,
Owre gauze and lace;
Tho', faith! I fear ye dine but sparely 5
On sic a place.
Ye ugly, creepin, blastit wonner,
Detested, shunn'd by saunt an' sinner,
How daur ye set your fit upon her-
Sae fine a lady? 10
Gae somewhere else and seek your dinner
On some poor body.
Swith! in some beggar's haffet squattle;
There ye may creep, and sprawl, and sprattle,
Wi' ither kindred, jumping cattle, 15
In shoals and nations;
Whaur horn nor bane ne'er daur unsettle
Your thick plantations.
Now haud you there, ye're out o' sight,
Below the fatt'rels, snug and tight; 20
Na, faith ye yet! ye'll no be right,
Till ye've got on it-
The verra tapmost, tow'rin height
O' Miss' bonnet.
My sooth! right bauld ye set your nose out, 25
As plump an' grey as ony groset:
O for some rank, mercurial rozet,
Or fell, red smeddum,
I'd gie you sic a hearty dose o't,
Wad dress your droddum. 30
I wad na been surpris'd to spy
You on an auld wife's flainen toy;
Or aiblins some bit dubbie boy,
On's wyliecoat;
But Miss' fine Lunardi! fye! 35
How daur ye do't?
O Jeany, dinna toss your head,
An' set your beauties a' abread!
Ye little ken what cursed speed
The blastie's makin: 40
Thae winks an' finger-ends, I dread,
Are notice takin.
O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
It wad frae mony a blunder free us, 45
An' foolish notion:
What airs in dress an' gait wad lea'e us,
An' ev'n devotion!
Robbie Burns.
>
> Well ... at least I thwarted you anticipated attempt to dismiss matter
> / EM interaction along the path on the basis that Hilbert's corpuscles
> will be lucky enough to avoid most of the mattter.
>
> Eh? If those four VLTI mirrors were each as big as Aricibo, do ya
> think
> one photon would still be big enough to cover all four mirrors ? ;-)
Don't see why not. Take one spark plug out of the engine block (still
attached to the wire), and start the engine. Better yet, start the
engine
and take one spark plug out of the block, still attached to the wire.
You can hear it on 4 AM radios.
Ever tuned in to 4 AM?
I'm usually asleep by then, Big Ben makes me grumpy.
Jug ears-elmo Marconi did that, he had a radio on your side of the
Atlantic, eh? He couldn't afford 3 more, though, he was paying
British income tax.
Oh, and the reason they all moved to Savannah, Ga, is that there
were no cabers left to toss. (And British income tax)
What the sheep didn't eat the highlanders had a fling with,
throwing them into Loch Ness. Now and then
a monster caber rises to the surface, then sinks again.
That's how the Loch Ness Monster was born.
I here Georgia is running out of cabers now, too.
Androcles.
Jerry
You are so incredibly off base it's not funny.
I am telling you that a line spectrum from a moving source will be
displaced relative to the line spectrum of a stationary source.
You claim that source dependency theory states otherwise, in complete
contradiction to well-known observation.
You claim that light traveling at c+v in vacuum travels at (c+v)/n in a
medium.
You claim that Doppler shift alters frequency but not wavelength.
Source dependency theory (emission theory) has been dead for nearly a
century.
http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/desit-2g.htm
It is an interesting, little known fact that EINSTEIN briefly
experimented with emission theory in the years before 1905.
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/Chasing_the_light/
> Place a narrow band filter in front of a prism. Say it lets through
light of
> 0.6u.
> Now focus 'white' starlight on it.
> Are you trying to make out the light will be refracted by different
amounts
> depending on the speed of the source?
> If so, you should renounce your allegiance to SR.
Totally irrelevant, every word.
>
> >
> >Source dependency theory is disproven by trivial observation.
>
> You are proven wrong with your false logic.
>
> >
> >(Note that spectroscopic gratings on the HST work as designed.
> >Extinction effects have nothing to do with explaining the
discrepancy
> >between source dependency theory and observed fact.)
>
> In your dreams boy.
Why do you automatically assume that I'm male?
Jerry
Androcles
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
Nah, just got tired of your one-line posts that take 500 attempts
not to get a point across.
Androcles.
>
>
> HW.
> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
>
Jerry
> Source dependency theory (emission theory) has been dead for nearly a
> century.
> http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/desit-2g.htm
There are several mistakes in the English translation. Among other
things, the crucial result, k < 0.002, was inadvertently omitted...
Jerry
Androcles
"Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1109161890....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
The phoenix rises from its own ashes.
The egg is about to hatch.
Androcles.
Jerry
Distinct smell of hydrogen sulfide. (gag)
Jerry
Androcles
Only you can smell it.
Shit your pants, huh?
Anyway, you can have the last word. I'm bored by you.
*plonk*
Androcles.
Uncle Al
[snip]
> Androcles.
<http://www.google.com/search?q=Androcles+fumble+site%3Ausers.pandora.be>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/EnergyConservation.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/HopeThatHelps.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PrizeYours.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/CoverUp.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/GDefence.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/OneDim.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Gullible.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/RelativityCancer.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Androrgasm.html>
Androcyst is a spewing psychotic idiot troll.
Why are you having so much trouble with basic algebra?
Let L = distance between Sam and Joe, as measured in the stationary
frame.
Let L' = distance between Sam and Joe, as measured in the moving
frame.
Let v = speed of Sam and Joe, as measured in the stationary frame
(with Joe in front of Sam).
Let L_1 = distance light travels in going from Sam to Joe, as
measured in the stationary frame.
Let L_1' = distance light travels in going from Sam to Joe, as
measured in the moving frame.
Let T_1 = time light travels in going from Sam to Joe, as measured in
the stationary frame.
Let T_1' = time light travels in going from Sam to Joe, as measured
in the moving frame.
Let L_2 = distance light travels in going from Joe to Sam, as
measured in the stationary frame.
Let L_2' = distance light travels in going from Joe to Sam, as
measured in the moving frame.
Let T_2 = time light travels in going from Joe to Sam, as measured in
the stationary frame.
Let T_2' = time light travels in going from Joe to Sam, as measured
in the moving frame.
What people are saying to you is that
1) L_1 = cL/(c-v)
2) L_1/T_1 = c
3) L_1' = L'
4) L_1'/T_1' = c
5) L_2 = cL/(c+v)
6) L_2/T_2 = c
7) L_2' = L'
8) L_2'/T_2' = c
So
L_1 is *not* equal to L_2
L_1 is *not* equal to L
L_1 is *not* equal to L'
L_1 is *not* equal to L_1'
L_2 is *not* equal to L
L_2 is *not* equal to L'
L_2 is *not* equal to L_2'
T_1 is *not* equal to T_2
T_1 is *not* equal to L/c
T_1 is *not* equal to L'/c
T_1 is *not* equal to T_1'
T_2 is *not* equal to L/c
T_2 is *not* equal to L'/c
T_2 is *not* equal to T_2'
On the other hand,
L_1' is equal to L_2'
L_1' is equal to L'
L_2' is equal to L'
T_1' is equal to T_2'
T_1' is equal to L'/c
T_2' is equal to L'/c
Is there yet another way for you to misunderstand?
Einstein:
稼tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] =
tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
Taking a = x, b = t + x'/(c-v), the functional equation above becomes:
tau(0,0,0,b-a/(c-v)) + tau(0,0,0,b+a/(c+v)) = 2 tau(a,0,0,b).
Defining the function F(k) = 2 tau(0,0,0,k), it then follows that
tau(a,0,0,b) = F(b-a/(c-v)) + F(b+a/(c+v)).
Conversely, taking a = 0 in the equation above, it follows that
tau(0,0,0,b) = F(b) + F(b) = 2F(b).
Therefore, the general solution to the functional equation above is:
tau(a,0,0,b) = F(b-a/(c-v)) + F(b+a/(c+v))
where F is otherwise arbitrary.
(Further restrictions cited in the paper then narrow down the function
F(x); this also shows that the assumption in the paper of
differentiability is entirely superfluous. The derivation above
proceeds without any assumption about tau being differentiable or even
continuous.)
Thus, going back to Einstein's notation with x' = x - vt, it follows
that
tau(x-vt,0,0,t) = F((ct-x)/(c-v)) + F((ct+x)/(c-v))
which shows that the natural coordinates that enter into play are ct-x
and ct+x.
In terms of these the Lorentz transformation simplifies substantially:
ct-x -> sqrt((c+v)/(c-v)) (ct-x)
ct+x -> sqrt((c-v)/(c+v)) (ct+x)
involving, respectively, a blue shift and red shift factor and
directly representing the Relativistic Doppler effect.
If two Lorentz transformation are done along the x axis at velocities
v1 and v2 respectively, then the factors would multiple:
sqrt((c+v1)/(c-v1)) sqrt((c+v2)/(c-v2))
which reduces to a Lorentz transform with a velocity v given by:
sqrt((c+v)/(c-v)) = sqrt((c+v1)/(c-v1)) sqrt((c+v2)/(c-v2))
Solving this for v, you get:
v = (v1 + v2)/(1 + v1 v2/c^2)
So the velocity addition rule becomes the addition rule for the
"rapidity":
u = c/2 ln((c+v)/(c-v))
with
u = u1 + u2.
Rapidity and velocity are virtually identical. For a vessel going at
v= 3km/second,
|v - u| ~~ 6 microns/second.
Therefore, velocities (redefined as rapidities) add as usual in
Relativity, as well as in Newtonian physics.
Hey idiot Androcles,
<http://www.google.com/search?q=Androcles+fumble+site%3Ausers.pandora.be>
reposting the same idiot drool that has been so thoroughly, utterly
publicly discredited by those who can do math (e.g., Randy Poe, in
disgustingly punctilious counterpoint) merely demonstrates what an
intractible idiot you are.
Empirical physical reality casts the only votes that count. Your
idiot spew is falsified by trivial empirical observation. You are a
psychotic ineducable idiot.
Where are your citations, idiot Androcles? Where are your literature
references, idiot Androcles? Where is your empirical observational
support, idiot Androcles? You drown in explicit empirical
falsfification, idiot Androcles. Your ignorance, incompetence, and
psychosis are not of interest to the world at large. Quite the
contrary. You are not even an interesting laughingstock.
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html>
Hafele-Keating experiment. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
Nature 425 374 (2003)
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/>
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
<http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf>
Relativity in the GPS system. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
<http://www.weburbia.demon.co.uk/physics/experiments.html>
Experimental constraints on General Relativity. You are fucked,
idiot Androcles.
Science 303(5661) 1143;1153 (2004)
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071
Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries. You are fucked, idiot
Androcles.
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
<http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html>
Mathematics of gravitation. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
http://www.hep.upenn.edu/~max/toe.html
You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
http://www.iancgbell.clara.net/maths/spctime.htm
You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
<http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/Fields2.pdf>
You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
Idiot Androcles is a eunuch in a brothel, a capon in a henhouse, a
steer amidst cows; a stot, a gelding, a gelt, a havier, a gib, a
lapin, a seg, a hog, a wether... a butt-fucked psychotic idiot spewing
in a science newsgroup.
Androcyst and logs:
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LogsHuh.html
Androcyst and vectors:
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/IdiotVectors.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AndroVec.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/VectorLength.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/VectorSpaces.html
Androcyst and limits:
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NegativeInfinity.html
Androcyst and equations:
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Pythagoras2.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SetSolve2.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Persuasive.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AndroDistri.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Pythagoras.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ToothlessBite.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Competent.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/UseTrans.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Sheesh.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SetSolve.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/DivZero.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Think.html
Androcyst and square roots:
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/STILL.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/CanSpecify.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Nearly.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Quadratic.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/GrowUp.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Tautology.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Material.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/GIVEN.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PythagoRescue.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SqrtRev.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NegSqrt.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SqrtAnswers.html
Androcyst and exclusive ors:
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Gibberish.html
Androcyst and partial differential equations:
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PartialDiff.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PartialDiff2.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PartialDiff3.html>
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
Uncle Al
[snip]
> Androcles
Uncle Al
[snip]
Uncle Al
[snip]
> Androcles.
Uncle Al
Androcles
news:421CA8D5...@hate.spam.net...
> Why are you having so much trouble with basic algebra?
> measured in the stationary frame.
What a right royal stooopid motherfucker.
See the peeing puppy moortel, he'll not be glad to add
you to his list of truly IMMORTAL fumbles. I will, though.
Androcles
Androcles
news:421CA8D5...@hate.spam.net...
> measured in the stationary frame.
Androcles
news:421CA8D5...@hate.spam.net...
> measured in the stationary frame.
What a right royal stooopid motherfucker.
See the peeing puppy moortel, he'll not be glad to add
you to his list of truly IMMORTAL fumbles. I will, though.
Androcles.
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:421CA939...@hate.spam.net...
Androcles
news:421CA8D5...@hate.spam.net...
> measured in the stationary frame.
Androcles
news:421CA8D5...@hate.spam.net...
> measured in the stationary frame.
Henri Wilson
>
><< What is matter? >>
>
>A smidgin less than a baryon but a pinch more than a lepton.
>
>
>http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/parint.html
>IOW... I dunno.
You aren't the only one.....
>:o)
>Sue...
Henri Wilson
>
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On 21 Feb 2005 20:02:52 -0800, "Jerry"
><Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >particular angle
>> >> will be refracted by the same amount no matter what its relative
>> >speed.
>> >.
>> >No matter how highly red-shifted or blue-shifted the light, it
>always
>> >emerges from a prism at the exact same angle as light from a
>stationary
>> >source? Prisms are useless for detecting Doppler shift?
>>
>> There you go!
>> Just like I said.
>> Refraction angle is independent of light speed.
>
>Snell's law arises geometrically, from considering what
>happens to different portions of a wavefront arriving
>at an interface at speed c1 and leaving at speed c2.
>For purely geometric reasons, sin(theta1)/sin(theta2)
>= c1/c2.
There are many assumptions in that statement.
Nobody has ever verified the relationship with a direct measurement of OWLS on
both sides of the interface.
>
>So what you are saying is that when light transitions
>into a medium with index of refraction n, then light
>which was moving at speed (c+v) in vacuum moves at
>speed (c+v)/n in the medium.
It is a possibility...but it doesn't seem to obey Maxwell's equations.
That is not exactly what I said anyway.
I was arguing that refraction angle, in say a prism, might be independent of
incident light speed.
>
>Would you care to go into how this happens?
>
>> >> Diffraction by a grating should also be independent of light
>speed,
>> >being a
>> >> function of wavelength only.
>> >.
>> >No matter how highly red-shifted or blue-shifted the light, it
>always
>> >emerges from a diffraction grating at the exact same angle as light
>> >from a stationary source? Diffraction gratings are useless for
>> >detecting Doppler shift?
>>
>> There you go!
>> Just like I said.
>> Diffraction angle is independent of light speed.
>
>Diffraction angle is governed by the relation between
>grating spacing and wavelength.
>
>Are you saying that light of a given frequency has the
>same wavelength whether it is moving at c or c+v? Are
>you familiary with the relationship between speed,
>frequency and wavelength?
For a wave in a medium, yes.
For light, the property we call 'frequency' is inferred.
Nobody has ever detected a frequency associated with light.
Nobody has ever described a photon structure possessing a physical spatial
regularity that gives the impression of 'wavelength'.
In other words, nobody has a clue about light.
>
> - Randy
Henri Wilson
You should be reading his latest. He has made another of his frequent
monumental blunders. (in the '1c+1c...thread). This one is HUGE!!!
>It's all one-liners that are not funny. 500 posts to not get a single
>point
>across. Yeuch. What's a luck shot?
>
>I've never heard of VLTI. Paranal. Who are they and who needs virtual
>long telescopes?
>
>Androcles.
>
>
>
YBM
> For light, the property we call 'frequency' is inferred.
>
> Nobody has ever detected a frequency associated with light.
What about interferences ?
> Nobody has ever described a photon structure possessing a physical spatial
> regularity that gives the impression of 'wavelength'.
Waves without wavelenght, interesting...
> In other words, nobody has a clue about light.
Strange enough that the laser effect has first been preticted then
that the actual devices has been build.
Randy Poe
Henri Wilson wrote:
> >So what you are saying is that when light transitions
> >into a medium with index of refraction n, then light
> >which was moving at speed (c+v) in vacuum moves at
> >speed (c+v)/n in the medium.
>
> It is a possibility...but it doesn't seem to obey Maxwell's
equations.
> That is not exactly what I said anyway.
But it's equivalent to what you said.
>
> I was arguing that refraction angle, in say a prism, might be
independent of
> incident light speed.
And since refraction angle is completely determined by ratio
of speeds, what you are saying is that ratio of speeds
is independent of incident speed.
> For a wave in a medium, yes.
>
> For light, the property we call 'frequency' is inferred.
I believe the last time you said this I posted some links
to optical frequency counters which measure the frequency
of light directly.
> Nobody has ever detected a frequency associated with light.
Well, except the people who build optical frequency counters.
> Nobody has ever described a photon structure possessing a physical
spatial
> regularity that gives the impression of 'wavelength'.
So you have an explanation for diffraction patterns and
interference fringes that never assumes there's such a thing
as wavelength?
- Randy
Henri Wilson
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On 22 Feb 2005 00:55:47 -0800, "Jerry"
>>
>> My statement was more of a question than an answer.
>> I don't know the answer and we don't really know what 'light
>wavelength' is, I
>> doubt if anyone else does either.
>>
>> Your own claims are based on the assumption that light always moves
>at c wrt
>> the prism or grating.
>> We, the enlightened, know that doppler shift is a result of relative
>light
>> speed NOT being c.
>>
>>
>> >
>> >According to source dependency theory as interpreted by Henry
>Wilson,
>> >neither prisms nor gratings are capable of detecting Doppler shift.
>>
>> Are you trying to tell me that a prism can tell us if light of a
>particular
>> wavelength has come from a moving source or not?
>
>You are so incredibly off base it's not funny.
You have not grasped the significance of my statement.
>
>I am telling you that a line spectrum from a moving source will be
>displaced relative to the line spectrum of a stationary source.
>
>You claim that source dependency theory states otherwise, in complete
>contradiction to well-known observation.
>
>You claim that light traveling at c+v in vacuum travels at (c+v)/n in a
>medium.
I didn't claim that. I said it is a possibility and that nobody has 'directly'
proved otherwise.
>
>You claim that Doppler shift alters frequency but not wavelength.
>
>Source dependency theory (emission theory) has been dead for nearly a
>century.
>http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/desit-2g.htm
We now know that DeSitter was wrong.
>
>It is an interesting, little known fact that EINSTEIN briefly
>experimented with emission theory in the years before 1905.
>http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/Chasing_the_light/
>
>> Place a narrow band filter in front of a prism. Say it lets through
>light of
>> 0.6u.
>> Now focus 'white' starlight on it.
>> Are you trying to make out the light will be refracted by different
>amounts
>> depending on the speed of the source?
>> If so, you should renounce your allegiance to SR.
>
>Totally irrelevant, every word.
You don't even understand what I'm talking about.
It is very relevant.
Doppler shift has a different meaning in the Ballistic model.
>
>>
>> >
>> >Source dependency theory is disproven by trivial observation.
>>
>> You are proven wrong with your false logic.
>>
>> >
>> >(Note that spectroscopic gratings on the HST work as designed.
>> >Extinction effects have nothing to do with explaining the
>discrepancy
>> >between source dependency theory and observed fact.)
>>
>> In your dreams boy.
>
>Why do you automatically assume that I'm male?
>
>Jerry
Henri Wilson
If Ritz hadn't died prematurely, Einstein wouldnever have been able to play his
joke on the world.
The ballistic theory correctly predicts the brightness curves of variable
stars. De Sitter was wrong.
My Vbasic program: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
tells you everything you want to know about binary stars and their expected
brightness variations.
If you can give me any reason why starlight should not travel through space for
eons at c relative to its source then please do.
>
>> Place a narrow band filter in front of a prism. Say it lets through
>light of
>> 0.6u.
>> Now focus 'white' starlight on it.
>> Are you trying to make out the light will be refracted by different
>amounts
>> depending on the speed of the source?
>> If so, you should renounce your allegiance to SR.
>
>Totally irrelevant, every word.
>
>>
>> >
>> >Source dependency theory is disproven by trivial observation.
>>
>> You are proven wrong with your false logic.
>>
>> >
>> >(Note that spectroscopic gratings on the HST work as designed.
>> >Extinction effects have nothing to do with explaining the
>discrepancy
>> >between source dependency theory and observed fact.)
>>
>> In your dreams boy.
>
>Why do you automatically assume that I'm male?
Because females cannot understand physics and there is no third gender.
>
>Jerry
Androcles
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
>>I didn't read it. Perhaps H was talking to Andersen, and that bores
>>me.
>
> You should be reading his latest. He has made another of his frequent
> monumental blunders. (in the '1c+1c...thread). This one is HUGE!!!
Yeah, but the court jester doesn't add it to his web pages.
You and I have pride of place as fumbling mumblers, and
I'm way ahead of you. At least Google is impartial.
Androcles
Franz Heymann
[snip]
> Eh? If those four VLTI mirrors were each as big as Aricibo, do ya
think
> one photon would still be big enough to cover all four mirrors ? ;-)
No, but its wave would.
There are no limitations on the transversedimensions of a plane wave.
--
Franz
"The great tragedy of science -- the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis
by an ugly fact."
T.H. Huxley
Franz Heymann
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
> On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 10:06:36 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
> <notfranz...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Sue..." <suzyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> >>
> >> << I think that light behaves increasingly more
> >> 'ballistically' as gas pressure approaches zero. Otherwise the
speed
> >of
> >> light
> >> entering any region containing low pressure matter will adjust
its
> >> speed
> >> towards the equilibrium speed in that matter frame. That doesn't
> >mean
> >> that all
> >> light within that region moves at the same speed. The degree of
> >> unification
> >> will dependent on density.
> >> I see nothing wrong with this concept.
> >
> >I do.
> >At the classical level, it is in contradiction with Maxwell's
> >equations, according to which
> >v = c / sqrt (eps*mu), with no adjustment times anywhere in sight.
>
> How do you know the measured values of eps and mu are not dependent
on observer
> speed through the medium?
>
> You don't.
I actually do. I have seen my colleagues calculate in in terms of the
polarisability of the atoms, which in turn is calculated ab inition in
the case of the gaseous atoms of low to middle atomic weight, for
which the wavefunctions are known sufficiently well
Fizeau also actually noticed it as early as the mid-nineteenth
century, in his experiments on the speed of light in moving media.
>
> >At the quantum level, a photon always moves with a speed c, even in
> >matter.
>
> That's an assumption.
No. It is a consequence of Maxwell's equations.
For that reasons, Einstein made it one of his postulates of SR, which
in turn is now one of the best established theories ever propounded by
man.
> >What looks like a slower photon is in reality a succession of
photons
> >absorbed and re-emitted coherently but with a changed phase
>
> If we had any idea what the terms 'wavelength', 'frequency' and
'phase' imply
> as regards light, we could probably be a little more specific about
that.
If you have no idea of what the relationship between the wavelength
and the frequency of EM radiation is, and whay the significance of the
phase of a wave is, that is your problem. It will probably remain so,
since you don't have sufficient neurons to unravel it.
> >> Nor does it seem to conflict
> >> with any
> >> evidence.
> >
> >Nobody has bothered to look, since it would be a clear waste of
time
> >to do so, because the passage of light through transparent media is
> >already fully understood in all its gory details.
>
> It is not at all understood in the high vacuum of space.
Balls.
>
> Light is emitted at c relative to its source, eg., a star.
>
> Nothing is known about the mechanisms that alter that speed as it
traverses
> space.
There are no mechanisms in free space. That is what free space is.
Just miles and miles of buggerall.
> >> Consider a universe comprised of only two hydrogen atoms. You
would
> >> have
> >> the electon orbits
>
> I didn't write that Heymann.
> You have your quotes mixed.
Blame that idiot Sue for perpetually mishandling attribution marks.
> >In the ground state, the electron is not in an orbit.
> >
> >> synchronized at any distance,
> >
> >What is it which you consider to be synchronised?
> >
> >> by photonic
> >> (Coulomb ? ) coupling such
> >> that a mid-point observer ( aka problematic vacuum impurity )
would
> >see
> >> the atoms as mirror images at any instant in tiime ?
> >
> >I thought you said the world consists of only 2 atoms. Lets grant
you
> >an observer as well. But then the question still remains: What
does
> >he use for observing the atoms?
> >
> >You have buggered up the attribution marks, so I don't know where
you
> >stopped and someone else started, so I'll stop here.
>
> You stuffed up Heymann.
> >[snip]
> >
> >I don't guarantee that I will answer any reply you may make, unless
> >you learn how to handle the attributions. Every thread you touch
is
> >turned into crap as things stand.
Jerry
Pig.
Jerry
Eric Gisse
Henri Wilson wrote:
> If Ritz hadn't died prematurely, Einstein wouldnever have been able
to play his
> joke on the world.
Ritz was wrong. Be sure to thank Androcles for me, else I would have no
idea who Ritz was. He provided a nice reference for me to learn about
Ritz's debunked theory.
One more for the shitheap.
>
> The ballistic theory correctly predicts the brightness curves of
variable
> stars. De Sitter was wrong.
No, it doesn't. This has been dealt with ad-nausium through people like
Paul Anderson.
>
> My Vbasic program: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
> tells you everything you want to know about binary stars and their
expected
> brightness variations.
A perfect addition to the equally-useless menangerie of programs, such
as threebody.
Still won't even tell me which numerical method your using? Afraid I
will laugh at you for using Euler?
>
> If you can give me any reason why starlight should not travel through
space for
> eons at c relative to its source then please do.
Your question continues to be like yourself: irrelevant. You pose the
question because you know there is no answer that will satisfy your
insatiable lust for a completely self-contained philosophy that
justifies itself to you.
[snip]
> >> In your dreams boy.
> >
> >Why do you automatically assume that I'm male?
>
> Because females cannot understand physics and there is no third
gender.
That was quite uncalled for. I am never one for being politically
correct but I make no allowances for "stupid". I can only imagine the
delight that one of my female friends who are in natrual sciences would
take in punching you in the balls.
I bet my *FEMALE* advisor would eviscerate you and pin you against the
wall to serve as an example to others who would chance to utter the
same sorry phrase as you.
Pig indeed.
>
> >
> >Jerry
>
>
> HW.
> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Henri Wilson
<notfranz...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
meaningless.
>>
>> >At the quantum level, a photon always moves with a speed c, even in
>> >matter.
>>
>> That's an assumption.
>
>No. It is a consequence of Maxwell's equations.
>For that reasons, Einstein made it one of his postulates of SR, which
>in turn is now one of the best established theories ever propounded by
>man.
Maxwell derived a value for the universal constant c, which happens to be
light's speed wrt its source. Maxwell actually thought it was light's speed
through the imaginery aether.
>
>> >What looks like a slower photon is in reality a succession of
>photons
>> >absorbed and re-emitted coherently but with a changed phase
>>
>> If we had any idea what the terms 'wavelength', 'frequency' and
>'phase' imply
>> as regards light, we could probably be a little more specific about
>that.
>
>If you have no idea of what the relationship between the wavelength
>and the frequency of EM radiation is, and whay the significance of the
>phase of a wave is, that is your problem. It will probably remain so,
>since you don't have sufficient neurons to unravel it.
You haven't improved Heymann. You are too ignorant to realise that other people
are way ahead of you.
Obviously there is a clearcut relationship between frequency, wavelength and
speed for a generated EM radio signal or similar.
I'm talking about individual building blocks of light whatever they may be.
If photons exist - which I doubt - what aspect of their INDIVIDUAL structure is
associated with an inherent wavelength of frequency?
>
>> >> Nor does it seem to conflict
>> >> with any
>> >> evidence.
>> >
>> >Nobody has bothered to look, since it would be a clear waste of
>time
>> >to do so, because the passage of light through transparent media is
>> >already fully understood in all its gory details.
>>
>> It is not at all understood in the high vacuum of space.
>
>Balls.
and the same to you.
>>
>> Light is emitted at c relative to its source, eg., a star.
>>
>> Nothing is known about the mechanisms that alter that speed as it
>traverses
>> space.
>
>There are no mechanisms in free space. That is what free space is.
>Just miles and miles of buggerall.
not so. It is filled with EM.
>
>> >> Consider a universe comprised of only two hydrogen atoms. You
>would
>> >> have
>> >> the electon orbits
>>
>> I didn't write that Heymann.
>> You have your quotes mixed.
>
>Blame that idiot Sue for perpetually mishandling attribution marks.
>
>> >In the ground state, the electron is not in an orbit.
>> >
>> >> synchronized at any distance,
>> >
>> >What is it which you consider to be synchronised?
>> >
>> >> by photonic
>> >> (Coulomb ? ) coupling such
>> >> that a mid-point observer ( aka problematic vacuum impurity )
>would
>> >see
>> >> the atoms as mirror images at any instant in tiime ?
>> >
Henri Wilson
>Henri Wilson a écrit :
>> For light, the property we call 'frequency' is inferred.
>>
>> Nobody has ever detected a frequency associated with light.
>
>What about interferences ?
That's a 'wavelength' phenomenon.
>
>> Nobody has ever described a photon structure possessing a physical spatial
>> regularity that gives the impression of 'wavelength'.
>
>Waves without wavelenght, interesting...
Who said they didn't exhibit wavelength like properties?
>
>> In other words, nobody has a clue about light.
>
>Strange enough that the laser effect has first been preticted then
>that the actual devices has been build.
So what? Unrelated.
Henri Wilson
>
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>
>> >So what you are saying is that when light transitions
>> >into a medium with index of refraction n, then light
>> >which was moving at speed (c+v) in vacuum moves at
>> >speed (c+v)/n in the medium.
>>
>> It is a possibility...but it doesn't seem to obey Maxwell's
>equations.
>> That is not exactly what I said anyway.
>
>But it's equivalent to what you said.
>
>>
>> I was arguing that refraction angle, in say a prism, might be
>independent of
>> incident light speed.
>
>And since refraction angle is completely determined by ratio
>of speeds, what you are saying is that ratio of speeds
>is independent of incident speed.
Randy, you don't know that 'refraction angle is completely determined by ratio
of speeds'. Nobody has ever measured those speeds.
>
>> For a wave in a medium, yes.
>>
>> For light, the property we call 'frequency' is inferred.
>
>I believe the last time you said this I posted some links
>to optical frequency counters which measure the frequency
>of light directly.
Optical frequency counters are used in optical communications. They have
nothing to do with 'frequencies' of individual photons.
>
>> Nobody has ever detected a frequency associated with light.
>
>Well, except the people who build optical frequency counters.
I think you are very confused.
>
>> Nobody has ever described a photon structure possessing a physical
>spatial
>> regularity that gives the impression of 'wavelength'.
>
>So you have an explanation for diffraction patterns and
>interference fringes that never assumes there's such a thing
>as wavelength?
I didn't say there wasn't 'wavelength'. I said 'frequency' is inferred.
It is the number of 'wavecrests' that pass per second.
It is NOT an intrinsic oscillation of a photon.
Can you not see the difference?
>
> - Randy
Henri Wilson
>
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>
>> If Ritz hadn't died prematurely, Einstein wouldnever have been able
>to play his
>> joke on the world.
>
>Ritz was wrong. Be sure to thank Androcles for me, else I would have no
>idea who Ritz was. He provided a nice reference for me to learn about
>Ritz's debunked theory.
Ritz was correct.
>
>One more for the shitheap.
>
>>
>> The ballistic theory correctly predicts the brightness curves of
>variable
>> stars. De Sitter was wrong.
>
>No, it doesn't. This has been dealt with ad-nausium through people like
>Paul Anderson.
Is that the same Paul Andersen who has just made a complete fool of himself in
that other thread (1c+1c.....)?
>
>>
>> My Vbasic program: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
>> tells you everything you want to know about binary stars and their
>expected
>> brightness variations.
>
>A perfect addition to the equally-useless menangerie of programs, such
>as threebody.
>
>Still won't even tell me which numerical method your using? Afraid I
>will laugh at you for using Euler?
You are a clueless idiot geese.
It's all a bit too hard for you, I'm afraid.
>
>>
>> If you can give me any reason why starlight should not travel through
>space for
>> eons at c relative to its source then please do.
>
>Your question continues to be like yourself: irrelevant. You pose the
>question because you know there is no answer that will satisfy your
>insatiable lust for a completely self-contained philosophy that
>justifies itself to you.
Typical SRian response when cornered.
"the question is irrelevant'.....HaHaHa!!!!
>
>[snip]
>
>> >> In your dreams boy.
>> >
>> >Why do you automatically assume that I'm male?
>>
>> Because females cannot understand physics and there is no third
>gender.
>
>That was quite uncalled for. I am never one for being politically
>correct but I make no allowances for "stupid". I can only imagine the
>delight that one of my female friends who are in natrual sciences would
>take in punching you in the balls.
Why do you automatically assume that I'm male?
>>
>
>I bet my *FEMALE* advisor would eviscerate you and pin you against the
>wall to serve as an example to others who would chance to utter the
>same sorry phrase as you.
>
>Pig indeed.
what are you, a poof?
>
>
>>
>> >
Eric Gisse
Henri Wilson wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 19:03:27 +0100, YBM <ybm...@nooos.fr> wrote:
>
> >Henri Wilson a écrit :
> >> For light, the property we call 'frequency' is inferred.
> >>
> >> Nobody has ever detected a frequency associated with light.
> >
> >What about interferences ?
>
> That's a 'wavelength' phenomenon.
You need to take an undergrad physics class that touches on optics.
The lecture I just attended disagrees with you rather explicitly,
considering how frequency affects interference rather intimately. It
was a good lecture too, UAF's physics department is searching for
candidates to take up an optics position.
Perhaps you should have applied? I would have paid good money to see
you give a lecture in front of most of the physics undergrads [7,
including a WOMAN], some of the grad students [one of which is a
WOMAN], and most of the faculty [which includes a WOMAN!].
>
> >
> >> Nobody has ever described a photon structure possessing a physical
spatial
> >> regularity that gives the impression of 'wavelength'.
> >
> >Waves without wavelenght, interesting...
>
> Who said they didn't exhibit wavelength like properties?
>
> >
> >> In other words, nobody has a clue about light.
> >
> >Strange enough that the laser effect has first been preticted then
> >that the actual devices has been build.
>
> So what? Unrelated.
If people know nothing about light, then how would the LASER been
predicted before being built?
>
>
> HW.
> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Randy Poe
Henri Wilson wrote:
> On 23 Feb 2005 10:26:11 -0800, "Randy Poe" <poespa...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>
> >
> >Henri Wilson wrote:
> >
> >> >So what you are saying is that when light transitions
> >> >into a medium with index of refraction n, then light
> >> >which was moving at speed (c+v) in vacuum moves at
> >> >speed (c+v)/n in the medium.
> >>
> >> It is a possibility...but it doesn't seem to obey Maxwell's
> >equations.
> >> That is not exactly what I said anyway.
> >
> >But it's equivalent to what you said.
> >
> >>
> >> I was arguing that refraction angle, in say a prism, might be
> >independent of
> >> incident light speed.
> >
> >And since refraction angle is completely determined by ratio
> >of speeds, what you are saying is that ratio of speeds
> >is independent of incident speed.
>
> Randy, you don't know that 'refraction angle is completely determined
by ratio
> of speeds'.
Yes, I do. Look up the derivation of Snell's Law
sometime from Huygen's principle.
> Nobody has ever measured those speeds.
It doesn't matter whether anyone has measured those speeds
(which of course they have, but let's not get into that
nonsense). The point is that if a wavefront travels at one
speed in one medium, and another speed in another medium,
then the refraction angle is determined by the ratio of
those speeds, whatever they happen to be.
You presumably believe that there is SOME speed in medium
1, and SOME speed in medium 2. The refraction angle tells you
the ratio of those two speeds. The ratio of the speeds tells
you the refraction angle.
If the speed in medium 1 is arbitrary c+v, but the speed
in medium 2 is not (c+v)*constant for all values of v,
then the refraction angle will not be independent of v.
The refraction angle is determined, by purely geometric
considerations, from the ratio of the two speeds.
Therefore your statement that "refraction angle is
independent of v" is exactly equivalent to "the ratio
of speeds in the two mediums is independent of v".
There, is that simpler enough? Or do you have an alternate
to geometry as well?
- Randy
Jerry
> On 23 Feb 2005 10:26:11 -0800, "Randy Poe" <poespa...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>
> >
> >Henri Wilson wrote:
> >
> >> >So what you are saying is that when light transitions
> >> >into a medium with index of refraction n, then light
> >> >which was moving at speed (c+v) in vacuum moves at
> >> >speed (c+v)/n in the medium.
> >>
> >> It is a possibility...but it doesn't seem to obey Maxwell's
> >equations.
> >> That is not exactly what I said anyway.
Who are YOU to cite Maxwell? Source dependency is inconsistent with
Maxwell's equations.
> >
> >But it's equivalent to what you said.
> >
> >>
> >> I was arguing that refraction angle, in say a prism, might be
> >independent of
> >> incident light speed.
> >
> >And since refraction angle is completely determined by ratio
> >of speeds, what you are saying is that ratio of speeds
> >is independent of incident speed.
>
> Randy, you don't know that 'refraction angle is completely determined
by ratio
> of speeds'. Nobody has ever measured those speeds.
Look up Huygens' Principle
> >> For a wave in a medium, yes.
> >>
> >> For light, the property we call 'frequency' is inferred.
> >
> >I believe the last time you said this I posted some links
> >to optical frequency counters which measure the frequency
> >of light directly.
>
> Optical frequency counters are used in optical communications. They
have
> nothing to do with 'frequencies' of individual photons.
>
> >
> >> Nobody has ever detected a frequency associated with light.
> >
> >Well, except the people who build optical frequency counters.
>
> I think you are very confused.
>
> >
> >> Nobody has ever described a photon structure possessing a physical
> >spatial
> >> regularity that gives the impression of 'wavelength'.
> >
> >So you have an explanation for diffraction patterns and
> >interference fringes that never assumes there's such a thing
> >as wavelength?
>
> I didn't say there wasn't 'wavelength'. I said 'frequency' is
inferred.
>
> It is the number of 'wavecrests' that pass per second.
>
> It is NOT an intrinsic oscillation of a photon.
>
> Can you not see the difference?
You seem to be asserting that frequency and wavelength are group
properties of streams of photons, and that individual photons cannot
exhibit frequency and wavelength.
As usual, boy, you are totally misguided.
Individual photons do exhibit frequency and wavelength. Consider the
two slit experiment. Turn down the intensity of light until single
photons pass through the slits. You STILL get interference!
Snotty nosed boys like you shouldn't pretend to understand physics.
Jerry
Henri Wilson
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On 23 Feb 2005 10:26:11 -0800, "Randy Poe" <poespa...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Henri Wilson wrote:
>> >
>> >> >So what you are saying is that when light transitions
>> >> >into a medium with index of refraction n, then light
>> >> >which was moving at speed (c+v) in vacuum moves at
>> >> >speed (c+v)/n in the medium.
>> >>
>> >> It is a possibility...but it doesn't seem to obey Maxwell's
>> >equations.
>> >> That is not exactly what I said anyway.
>
>Who are YOU to cite Maxwell? Source dependency is inconsistent with
>Maxwell's equations.
Bullshit.
Light moves at c wrt its source.
Maxwell thought light moved at c wrt the absolute aether.
>
>> >
>> >But it's equivalent to what you said.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> I was arguing that refraction angle, in say a prism, might be
>> >independent of
>> >> incident light speed.
>> >
>> >And since refraction angle is completely determined by ratio
>> >of speeds, what you are saying is that ratio of speeds
>> >is independent of incident speed.
>>
>> Randy, you don't know that 'refraction angle is completely determined
>by ratio
>> of speeds'. Nobody has ever measured those speeds.
>
>Look up Huygens' Principle
I know it well. It has many 'vaguaries'.
If they can, how do they do it?
>
>As usual, boy, you are totally misguided.
And you boy, are very confused.
>
>Individual photons do exhibit frequency and wavelength. Consider the
>two slit experiment. Turn down the intensity of light until single
>photons pass through the slits. You STILL get interference!
What a load of crap. Do you think you can see individual photons with thhe
double slit expt?
Photons , if they exist, range to infinity in all directions...but their fields
fall off very rapidly with distance. That explains the d.slit.
>
>Snotty nosed boys like you shouldn't pretend to understand physics.
Silly little girl!
>
>Jerry
jahn
"Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:1109309402....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Henri Wilson wrote:
> > On 23 Feb 2005 10:26:11 -0800, "Randy Poe" <poespa...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >Henri Wilson wrote:
> > >
> > >> >So what you are saying is that when light transitions
> > >> >into a medium with index of refraction n, then light
> > >> >which was moving at speed (c+v) in vacuum moves at
> > >> >speed (c+v)/n in the medium.
> > >>
> > >> It is a possibility...but it doesn't seem to obey Maxwell's
> > >equations.
> > >> That is not exactly what I said anyway.
>
> Who are YOU to cite Maxwell? Source dependency is inconsistent with
> Maxwell's equations.
>
> > >
> > >But it's equivalent to what you said.
> > >
> > >>
> > >> I was arguing that refraction angle, in say a prism, might be
> > >independent of
> > >> incident light speed.
> > >
> > >And since refraction angle is completely determined by ratio
> > >of speeds, what you are saying is that ratio of speeds
> > >is independent of incident speed.
> >
> > Randy, you don't know that 'refraction angle is completely determined
> by ratio
> > of speeds'. Nobody has ever measured those speeds.
>
> Look up Huygens' Principle
It is a bit like Feynman's time reversed photon in a
Maxwell solution.
Wavelets can't exist where there is nothing to wave but
the calculating procedure yeilds a satisfactory quantitative
result.
>
> > >> For a wave in a medium, yes.
> > >>
> > >> For light, the property we call 'frequency' is inferred.
> > >
> > >I believe the last time you said this I posted some links
> > >to optical frequency counters which measure the frequency
> > >of light directly.
> >
> > Optical frequency counters are used in optical communications. They
> have
> > nothing to do with 'frequencies' of individual photons.
> >
> > >
> > >> Nobody has ever detected a frequency associated with light.
> > >
> > >Well, except the people who build optical frequency counters.
> >
> > I think you are very confused.
> >
> > >
> > >> Nobody has ever described a photon structure possessing a physical
> > >spatial
> > >> regularity that gives the impression of 'wavelength'.
> > >
> > >So you have an explanation for diffraction patterns and
> > >interference fringes that never assumes there's such a thing
> > >as wavelength?
> >
> > I didn't say there wasn't 'wavelength'. I said 'frequency' is
> inferred.
> >
> > It is the number of 'wavecrests' that pass per second.
> >
> > It is NOT an intrinsic oscillation of a photon.
> >
> > Can you not see the difference?
>
Jerry:
<< You seem to be asserting that frequency and wavelength are group
properties of streams of photons, and that individual photons cannot
exhibit frequency and wavelength. >>
S:
They can't.
Frequency and wavelength are related by the velocity factor of
the dielectric (any two separated charges).
Dielectric constant is affected by conduductors as well as
insulating entities.
You can define magnetic frequency in terms of magnetic flux
reversals per second and measure it with an induction loop
but *only* in the near field.
Magetic flux reversals don't exist in the far-field (1/d^3 vs. 1/d^2 ) which is why
these loop antenna:
http://www.qsl.net/mnqrp/Loop/loops.jpg
from:
http://www.qsl.net/mnqrp/Loop/Mag_Loops.htm
require coupling to a larger loop to enhance to Coulomb
coupling along the path.
Long ferrite bars are also used to accomplish the same thing.
Sue...
jahn
"jahn" <susyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:3888ggF...@individual.net...
[ enhance the *aperture* of the Coulomb path ]
It is that dimension from which you can derive the 1/d^2
attenuation.
and of course... I don't thing you can enhance Coulomb coupling.
Blush :o)
Sue...
jahn
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:9kit11p2t802mola9...@4ax.com...
<< Silly little girl! >>
BLUSH!
Why... Thank you!
I get off work early today... ;-)
Sue...
>
> >
> >Jerry
>
>
> HW.
> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
>