Undeniable Proof of Light Source -Dependency
Jim Greenfield
velocity of light is dependent on the velocity of its source, I went
in search of one. Where? To the local police car, who just happened to
have two radar speed detectors. One can be used independently on the
roadside to detect speeding motorists- the other is connected to the
police car's speedo!!! Guess what??? With the independent one out the
window, and completely free of the police car, the neighbour's shed
was clocked at 60 mph!!! And still EMR is source independent?? Get a
grip!!!
Jim G
Ian Stirling
Yes.
Read up on how doppler radar works.
--
http://inquisitor.i.am/ | mailto:inqui...@i.am | Ian Stirling.
---------------------------+-------------------------+--------------------------
If it can't be expressed in figures, it is not science, it is opinion.
-- Robert A Heinlein.
Uncle Al
>
> Having been ridiculed for not studying radar, in my claims that the
> velocity of light is dependent on the velocity of its source,
http://w0rli.home.att.net/youare.swf
and trivially so. Solar system observed vs. calculated ephemeredes,
then orbits to send satellites to planets would be in disagreement.
GPS would not work. You are a jackass.
> I went
> in search of one. Where? To the local police car, who just happened to
> have two radar speed detectors.
[snip]
Not even wrong.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Mathew Orman
"Jim Greenfield" <greenf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3c4afb26.03072...@posting.google.com...
Sorry to say that!
But your experiment only proves that Police Radar Speed Detector is working
as specified!
It has at best 1% accuracy,
but for 60 mph one needs ten orders of magnitude better resolution and
accuracy!
Sincerely,
Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com
The Ghost In The Machine
<greenf...@hotmail.com>
wrote
on 27 Jul 2003 23:46:55 -0700
<3c4afb26.03072...@posting.google.com>:
Sounds more like a miscalibrated radar to me. Are the two at the
same frequency? If so, the signal from radar #1 might be
picked up from radar #2 and confusing it.
Also, I have no idea how police radars are supposed to
work but the simplest method I can think of engineering
one would require a continuous wave heterodyned with the
returned wave. This is an energy measurement, as it turns out
(it's also a time measurement).
If the waves come out at 100 MHz -- about FM radio
frequency, about 3 meters wavelength -- and the target
car is moving 30 m/s (67.1 mph) = 10^-7 c, the incoming
frequency will differ by about 10 Hz -- easy to measure
but a hand movement would probably confuse things a bit.
In fact, if one uses 671 Mhz or thereabouts the wave frequency
in Hz would correspond almost exactly with the miles per hour.
I can move my hand about 1 foot in 1/8 of a second, if
I wave it. This translates into 240 cm/s, or 5.4 mph.
So I'm not sure if that's it in your case, although an
involuntary hand movement could add this amount to the
reading; if the speed limit is 65 mph one might have a case
based on that (I can't be sure, though). There's a few
other issues, however; if one "sweeps" the radar across
a surface not normal to its beam the return signal coming
in slightly off-kilter may very well confuse the readout.
Also, why you'd want to give a shed a speeding ticket, I'm not sure. :-)
Were you moving at 60 mph at the time, or was the cruiser parked?
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Sam Wormley
Time for some self education Jim...
Speed of Light
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SpeedofLight.html
Special Relativity
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SpecialRelativity.html
Doppler Effect
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/DopplerEffect.html
Police radar is based on a differential doppler measurement of
echoes from moving and stationary objects.
Gregory L. Hansen
A police radar speed detector does not work by measuring the speed of the
reflected radar pulse.
--
"A good plan executed right now is far better than a perfect plan
executed next week."
-Gen. George S. Patton
Chuck Simmons
Your mastery of doppler radar makes you the envy of ... of ... the
looney bin. Sheesh!
Got any plans for FTL cars?
Chuck
--
... The times have been,
That, when the brains were out,
the man would die. ... Macbeth
Chuck Simmons chr...@earthlink.net
Chuck Simmons
BTW, doppler shift may have nothing to do with motion of the source.
This does not really relate to relativity because the motions of
interest are relatively slow. Sagnac, in 1913, showed that rotation of
an interferometer could be detected. He used a Sagnac interferometer and
and detected moderate rotation. The light source was either not moving
or rotated so that its velocity was perpendicular to the beam. Using
Sagnac's idea, Michelson and Gale detected the rotation of the earth
with a Sagnac interferometer in 1925. The ring laser uses much the same
idea. In the ring laser, it is very hard to decide if the source is
"really" moving. Because ring lasers tend to lock with slow rotational
speed, a variant can be built that uses a stationary source. In any
event, doppler shift exists even with stationary sources. Doppler shift
may be due to motion of the source or it may be due to variation in the
light path.
Jim Greenfield
> In article <3c4afb26.03072...@posting.google.com>,
> Jim Greenfield <greenf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Having been ridiculed for not studying radar, in my claims that the
> >velocity of light is dependent on the velocity of its source, I went
> >in search of one. Where? To the local police car, who just happened to
> >have two radar speed detectors. One can be used independently on the
> >roadside to detect speeding motorists- the other is connected to the
> >police car's speedo!!! Guess what??? With the independent one out the
> >window, and completely free of the police car, the neighbour's shed
> >was clocked at 60 mph!!! And still EMR is source independent?? Get a
> >grip!!!
> >Jim G
>
>
> A police radar speed detector does not work by measuring the speed of the
> reflected radar pulse.
Maybe not. BUT when the police vehicle is moving, the frequency of its
beam changes! If light is totally source independent, why should the
frequency change? The electro-magnetic particles emmitted are supposed
to not give a toss whether the vehicle is stationary or not under
constancy of 'c'-- But It Is Obviously and Incotravertibly Not So!
Jim G
PS I don't accept that democracy has a place in science. If more
people vote for a position which is wrong, then just more are wrong
than correct. In especially Relativity matters, there is also all that
more vote buying power of the grant, position, lifetimes' programming,
Institutional prestige etc, to grind down an opposing view point.
I also don't expect DHR's to recant anytime soon. Neither is it
likely the Pope will, although many question that a man three days
dead, got up and flew off to heaven.
Jim G
Richard
That's most likely because it was moving at 60 mph. Get a grip.
Richard Perry
Gregory L. Hansen
Jim Greenfield <greenf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message
>news:<bg3fbh$jj0$1...@hood.uits.indiana.edu>...
>> In article <3c4afb26.03072...@posting.google.com>,
>> Jim Greenfield <greenf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >Having been ridiculed for not studying radar, in my claims that the
>> >velocity of light is dependent on the velocity of its source, I went
>> >in search of one. Where? To the local police car, who just happened to
>> >have two radar speed detectors. One can be used independently on the
>> >roadside to detect speeding motorists- the other is connected to the
>> >police car's speedo!!! Guess what??? With the independent one out the
>> >window, and completely free of the police car, the neighbour's shed
>> >was clocked at 60 mph!!! And still EMR is source independent?? Get a
>> >grip!!!
>> >Jim G
>>
>>
>> A police radar speed detector does not work by measuring the speed of the
>> reflected radar pulse.
>
>Maybe not. BUT when the police vehicle is moving, the frequency of its
>beam changes! If light is totally source independent, why should the
>frequency change? The electro-magnetic particles emmitted are supposed
>to not give a toss whether the vehicle is stationary or not under
>constancy of 'c'-- But It Is Obviously and Incotravertibly Not So!
Before you keep going on about how relativity is contradicted by a change
in frequency, maybe it's time you find out what the theory actually says
about these matters.
>
>Jim G
>
>PS I don't accept that democracy has a place in science. If more
>people vote for a position which is wrong, then just more are wrong
>than correct. In especially Relativity matters, there is also all that
>more vote buying power of the grant, position, lifetimes' programming,
>Institutional prestige etc, to grind down an opposing view point.
> I also don't expect DHR's to recant anytime soon. Neither is it
>likely the Pope will, although many question that a man three days
>dead, got up and flew off to heaven.
>
>Jim G
I do, however, feel that you should say a theory is wrong for things
actually concluded from it. That requires the critics of relativity to
study it, and many of them on this newsgroup seem remarkably unwilling to
do so.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Gregory L. Hansen" <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message news:bg5tbq$cjj$3...@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
Most of them brown their underpants when they see an
equation. A few of the more gifted ones who can grasp
a square root usually go down when they see an integral.
But they can be really entertaining :-)
Dirk Vdm
Mathew Orman
"Jim Greenfield" <greenf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3c4afb26.03072...@posting.google.com...
One more description.
Police Radar measures the rate of relative change of phase of microwave
carrier.
It is unable to measure the velocity of propagation accurately.
The relativists here are also unable to provide an example experiment that
would be
reproducible by an average skill person here on the Earth.
If you are interested in knowing how to setup radar experiment to see
FTL propagation you need to ask people that do physical experiments on daily
bases.
Jim Greenfield
And do I need to spend a lifetime in a Seminary, in order to have an
opinion on The Resurrection?
Jim G
Jim Greenfield
So you'd be in the maths book which explains in detail how two
negative numbers multiplied, give a positive. Then in the next
chapter, give an equally believable (to fools) explanation of the
square root of a negative number. Use enough of these (imaginary)
numbers and formula, I guess you can "prove" anything (to the
gullible!!)
Jim Greenfield
Mathew,
The DHR's who bag me on these posts will not accept the proposition
that frequency change is a function of EM particle velocity change (or
spin- my other arguement which can we leave out). Therefore they feel
free to ignore the speed of the police car as irrelevent. But I went
to another local police station this afternoon, and the officer said
the same as before- that his roadside radar added the police car's
velocity when used on board and mobile.
JimG
Richard Henry
"Jim Greenfield" <greenf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3c4afb26.03072...@posting.google.com...
> So you'd be in the maths book which explains in detail how two
> negative numbers multiplied, give a positive. Then in the next
> chapter, give an equally believable (to fools) explanation of the
> square root of a negative number. Use enough of these (imaginary)
> numbers and formula, I guess you can "prove" anything (to the
> gullible!!)
Spaceman! You're back!
Dirk Van de moortel
"Jim Greenfield" <greenf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3c4afb26.03072...@posting.google.com...
news:<fMxVa.39937$F92....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be>...
> > "Gregory L. Hansen" <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message news:bg5tbq$cjj$3...@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
[snip]
> > > I do, however, feel that you should say a theory is wrong for things
> > > actually concluded from it. That requires the critics of relativity to
> > > study it, and many of them on this newsgroup seem remarkably unwilling to
> > > do so.
> >
> > Most of them brown their underpants when they see an
> > equation. A few of the more gifted ones who can grasp
> > a square root usually go down when they see an integral.
> > But they can be really entertaining :-)
> >
> > Dirk Vdm
>
> So you'd be in the maths book which explains in detail how two
> negative numbers multiplied, give a positive. Then in the next
> chapter, give an equally believable (to fools) explanation of the
> square root of a negative number. Use enough of these (imaginary)
> numbers and formula, I guess you can "prove" anything (to the
> gullible!!)
So you *are* one of the browning underpants type :-)
How sweet, James Spaceman Driscoll has a follower:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Aspaceman+negatives
Village idiot Spaceman seems to have left, so you are applying
to take over. How convenient.
You have a way to go, but here's your second entry already:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Gullible.html
Title: "The role of democracy and mathematics in science"
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"Richard Henry" <rph...@home.com> wrote in message news:XjLVa.4147$Ye.4012@fed1read02...
No, just a follower. And he can formulate a proper
sentence. We're going to have fun with this one :-))
Dirk Vdm
Mathew Orman
Both cases are valid,
but the Police Radar is not able to show the speed as indicated by
stationary observer
another words it cannot display c-60 mph or c+60 mph.
To do that more sophisticated system is needed that contains two stationary
sensing antennas space a part as far
as the test equipment allows.
Sincerely,
Mathew Orman
www.radio-faster-than-light.com
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
tj Frazir
The speed of sound is the speed of sound regardless of how stupid you
are and the conductivity of light is the conductivity of light no
matter how stupid you are
Gregory L. Hansen
See what I mean? You apparantly have no intention of studying relativity,
yet you think you know enough about it to say why it's wrong.
A lifetime would be far too much to ask. But you can pick up a textbook
running around 200 pages and make some effort to work through the problem
sets. If you want to play scientist, you have to do that sort of thing.
Mathew Orman
No,
it is lot easer an more productive to setup radar experiment that show c+v
!= c
Mathew Orman
"tj Frazir" <Gravity...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:18068-3F...@storefull-2156.public.lawson.webtv.net...
Well,
you've overestimated my IQ level
I do not understand your statements at all!
Gregory L. Hansen
There has been no such result.
Mathew Orman
And there has been no such experiment!
Also, please do not provide inaccessible references!
tj Frazir
each point will react with the next point at C.
The motion of the sender can move and change the energy exchanged but
wount change the rate of te reaction.
The emiter sends it at C and it conducts at C and it will react with
the observer at C.
Going faster than sound wount speed up sound. And youcant go fatser
than C because energy reacts with energy at C .
tj Frazir
Mathew Orman
> the radio is light ya idiot.
>
Again,
adding more complexities to you statements does not improve my
understanding!
Try explaining with out using words like energy or time
after all the universe is simply:
matter in motion occupying property-less space.
Gregory L. Hansen
>
>"Gregory L. Hansen" <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
>news:bg8v5e$ash$1...@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
>> In article <bg8rrg$96b$1...@news.onet.pl>, Mathew Orman <or...@nospam.com>
>wrote:
>> >No,
>> >it is lot easer an more productive to setup radar experiment that show
>c+v
>> >!= c
>>
>> There has been no such result.
>>
>> --
>> "A good plan executed right now is far better than a perfect plan
>> executed next week."
>> -Gen. George S. Patton
>
>And there has been no such experiment!
>
>Also, please do not provide inaccessible references!
The references I've provided are free to the general public around the
world. All you need to do is get your ass out of your chair and go to the
nearest library. A library is a building that contains books and other
materials to be loaned to the public. You can even take materials home
with you, free of charge. You'll have to fill out some paperwork to get a
library card. Journals usually can't be taken from libraries,
you may have to pay photocopying fees if you don't want to read the
material there. If your nearest library is a rinky-dink branch library,
they can still get the materials for you by what is called an
inter-library loan. If the library doesn't have something you need, it
will borrow the material from another library that does, they'll ship it
in, and you can pick it up in about a week. For a journal article they
might just give you a photocopy to keep, without even charging you a
photocopying fee.
If you have any other questions about libraries, I'm sure everyone here
will be happy to answer them, so go ahead and ask. Every scientist should
learn about libraries.
Mathew Orman
I've already stated that my local library does not carry any of such!
Also for the theory that consumes bullion dollar a years the experimental
evidence should be all over the www.
Here, the entire department of physics dedicated to FTL phenomena
with free access and free publications paid for by government of Sweden:
http://dist.tech.oru.se/public/superluminal/index.html
Gregory L. Hansen
I've given a clue out of your dilemma in the material you've quoted above.
Try the interlibrary loan service. Go to a librarian and explain what you
want, and they'll tell you if they can get it.
At any rate, it's hard to play scientist if you can't get these things.
>Also for the theory that consumes bullion dollar a years the experimental
>evidence should be all over the www.
Perhaps it is. How hard have you looked?
>Here, the entire department of physics dedicated to FTL phenomena
>with free access and free publications paid for by government of Sweden:
>http://dist.tech.oru.se/public/superluminal/index.html
Doesn't seem to work with my browser. Is there a lot of experimental FTL
data up there?
Timo Nieminen
> "Gregory L. Hansen" <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
> > Mathew Orman <or...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >And there has been no such experiment!
> > >
> > >Also, please do not provide inaccessible references!
> >
> > The references I've provided are free to the general public around the
> > world. All you need to do is get your ass out of your chair and go to the
> > nearest library. A library is a building that contains books and other
> > materials to be loaned to the public. You can even take materials home
> > with you, free of charge. You'll have to fill out some paperwork to get a
> > library card. Journals usually can't be taken from libraries,
> > you may have to pay photocopying fees if you don't want to read the
> > material there. If your nearest library is a rinky-dink branch library,
> > they can still get the materials for you by what is called an
> > inter-library loan.
>
> I've already stated that my local library does not carry any of such!
> Also for the theory that consumes bullion dollar a years the experimental
> evidence should be all over the www.
As above, interlibrary loan. However, given that you stand to make
millions from selling your FTL cables when your genius is properly
recognized, I'd think that USD20 to buy a copy of a paper would be a wise
investment.
Since you're certain that your cables work, a little (or even a large)
investment to prove that they work is a sure bet.
--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html
Randy Poe
Greenfield) wrote:
>Maybe not. BUT when the police vehicle is moving, the frequency of its
>beam changes! If light is totally source independent, why should the
>frequency change?
The frequency depends on the relative motion between source and
observer. As you noted, you can't tell in a Doppler experiment the
difference between a car moving at 60 mph toward a fixed object, or an
object moving at 60 mph toward a fixed car. There IS no difference.
The Doppler in both cases measures a relative approach velocity of 60
mph.
Incidentally, at least in military applications there is a second
measurement taken with Doppler radar, which is usually pulsed. Namely,
the time of flight. This is used to estimate range at the same time as
Doppler, and the estimate is based on a source-independent speed of
light.
> The electro-magnetic particles emmitted are supposed
>to not give a toss whether the vehicle is stationary or not under
>constancy of 'c'-- But It Is Obviously and Incotravertibly Not So!
Maxwell's equations predict a certain speed of propagation,
independent of the source. It is Obviously an Incontrovertibly So.
- Randy
Mathew Orman
"Randy Poe" <rpo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:id9qivgfvnf0a9bbk...@4ax.com...
So, you confirm that c+v != c
Thank you!
Bill Vajk
> Incidentally, at least in military applications there is a second
> measurement taken with Doppler radar, which is usually pulsed.
So far as I am aware *all* tactical radar is pulsed doppler
these days. Ranging is critical as are a number of other
functions which usually form part of the display, such as
an almost instantaneous indication whether the target is
approaching or receding. Airborne tactical radars, in
fighters anyway, sport phased array antennas with beam
steering abilities anywhere in the aperture on a pulse
to pulse basis. Ranging for any target on a sequential
basis is calculated against the doppler report for the
target as one factor to counter electronic warfare
tactics (i.e. ejecting reflective chaff.)
> Maxwell's equations predict a certain speed of propagation,
> independent of the source. It is Obviously an Incontrovertibly So.
We take advantage of this Incontrovertibly So in many ways.
The Ghost In The Machine
<or...@nospam.com>
wrote
on Sun, 3 Aug 2003 18:31:50 +0200
<bgjd96$lc2$1...@news.onet.pl>:
It never was. However, v' = v+w is the wrong formula for
velocity addition between reference frames.
(The correct formula is v' = (v+w)/(1+vw/c^2).)
As for the Doppler effect: there are (at least) two
explanations. Either one changes the velocity of the
propagating photon, or the energy.
Which one is more correct? It turns out that Frodo's
experiments are most conclusive on this: the energy of
the photon is affected by velocity. This principle is
also utilized in a heterodyning speed radar.
[.sigsnip]
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Mathew Orman
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
message news:1n2001-...@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net...
The real Doppler is the prove that light speed is constant only WRT it's
source!
The Ghost In The Machine
<bgjsrn$oq8$1...@news.onet.pl>:
[snip for brevity]
> The real Doppler is the prove that light speed is constant only WRT it's
> source!
Were that the case we'd observe discrepancies in certain
binary star systems. I'm also intrigued by millisecond
pulsars; such highly accurate sources (basically, natural
clocks) should be able to easily disprove "nonconstant
lightspeed" (by proving the alternate, "nonconstant
frequency").
However, I'd have to look.
Jim Greenfield
OoOR- I could take a radar which is set for stationary application
relative to the traffic, and spend a lifetime trying to figure a way
to justify the fact that it gives a different reading when mounted on
a moving source, without the velocity of the emmitted EMR particles
being source dependent.
You are capable of thowing down ridicule from your institutional ivory
tower, but what you are incapable of, after interminable opportunities
on these threads, is point to an experiment which shows unambiguously,
that EMR particles have a velocity independent of their source.
Still waiting....................................
Jim G
Jim Greenfield
"Faith is the ability to believe bullshit" (ie Big Bang, light
source independent, gravity alters time, etc)
- Prvt. Jim Greenfield
Mathew Orman
I'd look for evidence here on the Earth.
Randy Poe
> > Maxwell's equations predict a certain speed of propagation,
> > independent of the source. It is Obviously an Incontrovertibly So.
> >
>
> So, you confirm that c+v != c
> Thank you!
OK, I know that English is not your native language. But tell
me how you read "the speed of propagation of light is independent
of the source" and conclude that I said "the speed of propagation
of light changes with source velocity"??
- Randy
Gregory L. Hansen
It's amazingly similar to the Doppler shifting of sound in air. When a
car zooms past you hear a change in pitch, but the speed of sound relative
to the air, and relative to yourself, the stationary observer, doesn't
change.
The secret to Doppler shifting of light is that the source moves --
it's closer to you when it emits peak 2 than it was when it emitted peak
1, so peak 2 has less distance to travel to get to you, so takes less
time. Heck, that's the secret to any Doppler shifting. If the only
thing that happened was the speed of the signal changed, that would
change the wavelength but not the frequency because no matter how fast the
speed of the signal is, the receiver won't be getting wave peaks from a
stationary source faster than they're coming out.
>You are capable of thowing down ridicule from your institutional ivory
>tower,
Ridicule? I said you you don't understand the theory. I said you're
making claims for it that aren't true. I said you should learn something
about it before you claim to know what's wrong with it. I said you can
do that without spending a lifetime on the subject, a textbook of around
200 pages should do if you took it seriously. Which part of any of what
I've said to you was ridicule, or even untrue?
Here's ridicule: you're a lazy scholar.
>but what you are incapable of, after interminable opportunities
>on these threads, is point to an experiment which shows unambiguously,
>that EMR particles have a velocity independent of their source.
>Still waiting....................................
You hadn't asked me.
You think if someone on Usenet doesn't dig up references on your
demand, then those referencess don't exist? Ever thought of trying to
find them yourself? I'll tell you the same thing I told Mathew
Orman four times so far...
NIM A 355 (1995) 537
Physical Review 135 (1964) B1071
Physics Letters B 328 (1994) 103
Physical Review Letters 39 (1977) 1051
Physical Review Letters 64 (1990) 1697
Physics Letters 12 (1964) 260
It took about an hour to find those. Now if you follow Orman, you'll
first ignore them and keep claiming that nobody can point to the
experiments you've asked for, then pretend they don't exist because
they're not URLs and continue to claim that nobody can point to the
experiments you've asked for, and then complain that they're inaccessible
to you and continue to claim that those experiments don't exist, and
continue to argue a point that's been empirically disproven decades ago in
literature that's freely available to the general public.
Do you really think that the only reason those in the institutional ivory
tower get frustrated in these discussions is because of a difference of
opinion?
>Jim G
>
>> > --
>> > "A good plan executed right now is far better than a perfect plan
>> > executed next week."
>> > -Gen. George S. Patton
>>
>> No,
>> it is lot easer an more productive to setup radar experiment that show c+v
>> != c
Your conclusion does not follow from the data.
wchogg
> In article <3c4afb26.03080...@posting.google.com>,
> Jim Greenfield <greenf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >OoOR- I could take a radar which is set for stationary application
> >relative to the traffic, and spend a lifetime trying to figure a way
> >to justify the fact that it gives a different reading when mounted on
> >a moving source, without the velocity of the emmitted EMR particles
> >being source dependent.
>
> It's amazingly similar to the Doppler shifting of sound in air. When a
> car zooms past you hear a change in pitch, but the speed of sound relative
> to the air, and relative to yourself, the stationary observer, doesn't
> change.
>
> The secret to Doppler shifting of light is that the source moves --
> it's closer to you when it emits peak 2 than it was when it emitted peak
> 1, so peak 2 has less distance to travel to get to you, so takes less
> time. Heck, that's the secret to any Doppler shifting. If the only
> thing that happened was the speed of the signal changed, that would
> change the wavelength but not the frequency because no matter how fast the
> speed of the signal is, the receiver won't be getting wave peaks from a
> stationary source faster than they're coming out.
God, it actually seems weird to me to think about Doppler shift not
related to light. I need to read back in a intro book about how acoustics
work again, I don't remember much of any of it.
> >You are capable of thowing down ridicule from your institutional ivory
> >tower,
>
> Ridicule? I said you you don't understand the theory. I said you're
> making claims for it that aren't true. I said you should learn something
> about it before you claim to know what's wrong with it. I said you can
> do that without spending a lifetime on the subject, a textbook of around
> 200 pages should do if you took it seriously. Which part of any of what
> I've said to you was ridicule, or even untrue?
>
> Here's ridicule: you're a lazy scholar.
It is annoying when people refuse to study a subject when all of us who
actually are learning/have learned physics have had to spend many, many,
many hours studying to make sense of it.
His was a typical response, though. He may say I'm "throwing down
ridicule" from my "ivory tower", but I say it's his fault for setting up
camp in my ivory tower's septic tank.
--
William C. Hogg
Mathew Orman
All in universe is relative
so, if you are traveling with the source that radiates EM than you can
measures c.
But when you are stationary observer seeing source of EM radiation in motion
with velocity v
than what you can measure is c+v.
Magnus Nyborg
>
[...]
> All in universe is relative
> so, if you are traveling with the source that radiates EM than you can
> measures c.
> But when you are stationary observer seeing source of EM radiation in
motion
> with velocity v
> than what you can measure is c+v.
Do the measurement! Once you do it, you will find out that you are wrong...
Clear Skies,
Magnus
Mathew Orman
"Magnus Nyborg" <mag...@nybtech.com> wrote in message
news:zKxXa.18732$mU6....@newsb.telia.net...
Did you do one?
Magnus Nyborg
>
> "Magnus Nyborg" <mag...@nybtech.com> wrote in message
> news:zKxXa.18732$mU6....@newsb.telia.net...
> >
> > "Mathew Orman" <or...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:bgm3f0$k64$1...@news.onet.pl...
> > >
> > [...]
> > > All in universe is relative
> > > so, if you are traveling with the source that radiates EM than you can
> > > measures c.
> > > But when you are stationary observer seeing source of EM radiation in
> > motion
> > > with velocity v
> > > than what you can measure is c+v.
> >
> > Do the measurement! Once you do it, you will find out that you are
> wrong...
> >
> > Clear Skies,
> > Magnus
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > >
> > > Mathew Orman
> > > www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
> > > www.radio-faster-than-light.com
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
> Did you do one?
I believe it without having done the experiment myself, from other
verifiable evidence.
You claim that the experiment will render c + v, now do the experiment and
prove your statement!
Sam Wormley
>
> All in universe is relative so, if you are traveling with the source that
> radiates EM than you can measures c. But when you are stationary observer
> seeing source of EM radiation in motion with velocity v than what you can
> measure is c+v.
>
No--See: http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SpecialRelativity.html
Excerpts from: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/velocity.html
Suppose an object A is moving with a velocity v relative to an object B
and B is moving with a velocity u (in the same direction) relative to
an object C. What is the velocity of A relative to C?
v
u -------> A
-------> B
C w
----------------->
In non-relativistic mechanics the velocities are simply added and the
answer is that A is moving with a velocity w = u+v relative to C. But
in special relativity the velocities must be combined using the formula
w = (u + v)/(1 + uv/c2)
If u and v are both small compared to the speed of light c, then the
answer is approximately the same as the non-relativistic theory. In
the limit where u is equal to c (because C is a massless particle
moving to the left at the speed of light), the sum gives c. This
confirms that anything going at the speed of light does so in all
reference frames.
This change in the velocity addition formula is not due to making
measurements without taking into account time it takes light to travel
or the Doppler effect. It is what is observed after such effects have
been accounted for and is an effect of special relativity which cannot
be accounted for with Newtonian mechanics.
> The formula can also be applied to velocities in opposite directions by
> simply changing signs of velocity values or by rearranging the formula
> and solving for v. In other words, If B is moving with velocity u
> relative to C and A is moving with velocity w relative to C then the
> velocity of A relative to B is given by,
v = (w - u)/(1 - wu/c2)
Notice that the only case with velocities less than or equal to c which
is singular is w = u = c which gives the indeterminate zero divided by
zero. In other words it is meaningless to ask the relative velocity of
two photons going in the same direction.
Sam Wormley
>
> "Magnus Nyborg" <mag...@nybtech.com> wrote in message
> news:zKxXa.18732$mU6....@newsb.telia.net...
> >
> >
>
>
It only matters that you make the measurement, Mathew! You are the one
who has got the physics wrong. Magnus making the measurement does you
no good and is, therefore, irrelevant.
Eric Prebys
"Jim Greenfield" <greenf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3c4afb26.03072...@posting.google.com...
> Having been ridiculed for not studying radar, in my claims that the
> velocity of light is dependent on the velocity of its source, I went
> in search of one. Where? To the local police car, who just happened to
> have two radar speed detectors. One can be used independently on the
> roadside to detect speeding motorists- the other is connected to the
> police car's speedo!!! Guess what??? With the independent one out the
> window, and completely free of the police car, the neighbour's shed
> was clocked at 60 mph!!! And still EMR is source independent?? Get a
> grip!!!
> Jim G
Since you've obviously never seen a textbook, try a Google search,
"relativistic doppler shift": 14300 hits
Also, you might benefit from reading the following:
http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html
and getting a hobby you can undestand.
-Eric
Jim Greenfield
"the Time of Flight"!! is the velocity of the plane. The pilot
cannot tell the velocity of the target, unless his own air-speed is
factored in. Thank you for yor support!
Jim G
Jim Greenfield
My last IQ test 135. Won university scholarship (top 2 percent) for
science entry. So self absorb your pathetic ridicule.
I suppose I could get a law degree, and sue the world's police
departments for the billions they have apparently falsely taken in
speeding tickets--- I should win that case easily if you are right!!
Jim G
Randy Poe
A doesn't follow from B. The speed of light is independent of
source velocity. The frequency of light is not. How do you
deduce from that that the Doppler effect is not a valid
way to issue speeding tickets?
You really have no idea what anybody is saying about Doppler,
do you? In short sentences:
1. Doppler radar works.
2. Light speed is a constant.
- Randy
The Ghost In The Machine
<bgl6mo$6q8$1...@news.onet.pl>:
http://www.cerncourier.com/main/article/42/6/11
mentions a high-precision reprise of the MMX experiment.
This is significant but relatively uninteresting as one can
easily postulate that light speed depends on source only.
A more interesting variant might be a lightbeam hitting
a Foucalt-like rotating mirror, except that instead of
simply turning the light beam the beam would hit it at a
tangent and reflect to a detector which would measure the
frequency and maybe the velocity as well (the former is
far easier to measure). Based on various theoretical
computations one should be able to determine lightspeed.
10,000 RPM @ 67 mm radius should be easy enough (67 mm radius
= 5 1/4" diameter), yielding an edge velocity of 70 m/s,
which is about 2.3 * 10^-7 c. Effects should be on the order
of 100 parts per billion. Is this what you had in mind?
There is a physics class which uses Pasco equipment
http://class.phys.psu.edu/p457/experiments/lightspeed.html
to measure lightspeed, but I suspect it's a relatively
static TWLS measurement.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Mathew Orman
> www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
> www.radio-faster-than-light.com
>
>
Eric Prebys
> "Eric Prebys" <ericp...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:<bgmdn4$atd$1...@info4.fnal.gov>...
> > "Jim Greenfield" <greenf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:3c4afb26.03072...@posting.google.com...
> > > Having been ridiculed for not studying radar, in my claims that the
> > > velocity of light is dependent on the velocity of its source, I went
> > > in search of one. Where? To the local police car, who just happened to
> > > have two radar speed detectors. One can be used independently on the
> > > roadside to detect speeding motorists- the other is connected to the
> > > police car's speedo!!! Guess what??? With the independent one out the
> > > window, and completely free of the police car, the neighbour's shed
> > > was clocked at 60 mph!!! And still EMR is source independent?? Get a
> > > grip!!!
> > > Jim G
> >
> > Since you've obviously never seen a textbook, try a Google search,
> > "relativistic doppler shift": 14300 hits
> >
> > Also, you might benefit from reading the following:
> > http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html
> > and getting a hobby you can undestand.
> >
> > -Eric
>
> My last IQ test 135. Won university scholarship (top 2 percent) for
> science entry.
Jeepers! I'll bet you're in Mensa, too, aren't you?
Do you find these thing help you in your food service career?
> So self absorb your pathetic ridicule.
> I suppose I could get a law degree, and sue the world's police
> departments for the billions they have apparently falsely taken in
> speeding tickets--- I should win that case easily if you are right!!
Unlike you, police departments are smart enough to know that
radar guns measure *relative* velocity. However, if you
do find that they've been issuing speeding tickets to tool sheds,
then by all means, be my guest and take them to court.
-Eric
> Jim G
keith stein
> 2. Light speed is a constant.
>
> - Randy
Still peddling Einstein's fallacy i see Mr. Poe.
An e-m wave in air travels relative to the air,
and it's speed through the air is indeed independent
of the speed of the SOURCE, relative to the air, BUT
the speed of light relative to an OBSERVER
is certainly not independent of the speed of
THE OBSERVER, and any one who tells
you different, is talking BULLSHIT eh!
keith stein
Jim Greenfield
> In sci.physics, Mathew Orman
> <or...@nospam.com>
> wrote
> on Sun, 3 Aug 2003 22:57:44 +0200
> <bgjsrn$oq8$1...@news.onet.pl>:
>
> [snip for brevity]
>
> > The real Doppler is the prove that light speed is constant only WRT it's
> > source!
>
> Were that the case we'd observe discrepancies in certain
> binary star systems. I'm also intrigued by millisecond
> pulsars; such highly accurate sources (basically, natural
> clocks) should be able to easily disprove "nonconstant
> lightspeed" (by proving the alternate, "nonconstant
> frequency").
>
> However, I'd have to look.
>
> [.sigsnip]
Ghost, I had a thought about that- maybe the center of gravity of the
binary system is oscillating. If you accept (as I do) that gravity
alters photon velocity, this maybe would foul up observed frequency of
emmitted light ??
Jim G
Randy Poe
Greenfield) wrote:
> "the Time of Flight"!! is the velocity of the plane. The pilot
>cannot tell the velocity of the target, unless his own air-speed is
>factored in. Thank you for yor support!
Here's the calculation:
Range = ct/2
(The factor of 2 comes from the fact that the pulse travelled the
distance to the target and back again).
Tell me how this supports your position that the plane's velocity
needs to be "factored in".
- Randy
Randy Poe
Greenfield) wrote:
>OoOR- I could take a radar which is set for stationary application
>relative to the traffic, and spend a lifetime trying to figure a way
>to justify the fact that it gives a different reading when mounted on
>a moving source,
That would be a waste of your lifetime, since you are trying to
explain a "fact" which is untrue. The Doppler shift will ALWAYS be the
same for the same relative velocity.
- Randy
Jim Greenfield
But I'll be stuffed before I commit your sin-- A brain-washed bone
lazy thinker!!!
Throw balls at 10m/sec, and rate of one throw per second. Frequency of
hits in catchers glove at 100 meters is 10 in 10 seconds=1/sec
(right!). But if you are on a vehicle travelling towards catcher at
10m/sec throwing the balls, is he still catching balls at
1/sec?????/??. And this frequency has increased because the source of
the balls was moving, just like the photon particle!
>
> It is annoying when people refuse to study a subject when all of us who
> actually are learning/have learned physics have had to spend many, many,
> many hours studying to make sense of it.
Perhaps you would have spent your time better questioning illogical
hypothesis, and learning how to operate the Relativity Ouija board
(maths)
>
> His was a typical response, though. He may say I'm "throwing down
> ridicule" from my "ivory tower", but I say it's his fault for setting up
> camp in my ivory tower's septic tank.
So pray tell, do you subscribe to the theory that as velocity changes
time, that a bird flying fast enough past my homely septic will
disappear up it's own arse, due to shrinking of length??? But then
again, I suppose that tower is in a "different frame of reference"
Jim G
Jim Greenfield
> "Jim Greenfield" <greenf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3c4afb26.0308...@posting.google.com...
> > "Eric Prebys" <ericp...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:<bgmdn4$atd$1...@info4.fnal.gov>...
> > > "Jim Greenfield" <greenf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:3c4afb26.03072...@posting.google.com...
> > > > Having been ridiculed for not studying radar, in my claims that the
> > > > velocity of light is dependent on the velocity of its source, I went
> > > > in search of one. Where? To the local police car, who just happened to
> > > > have two radar speed detectors. One can be used independently on the
> > > > roadside to detect speeding motorists- the other is connected to the
> > > > police car's speedo!!! Guess what??? With the independent one out the
> > > > window, and completely free of the police car, the neighbour's shed
> > > > was clocked at 60 mph!!! And still EMR is source independent?? Get a
> > > > grip!!!
> > > > Jim G
> > >
> > > Since you've obviously never seen a textbook, try a Google search,
> > > "relativistic doppler shift": 14300 hits
> > >
> radar guns measure *relative* velocity. However, if you
> do find that they've been issuing speeding tickets to tool sheds,
> then by all means, be my guest and take them to court.
>
> -Eric
>
Jim G
Eric Prebys
Eh, because they don't use the photon's velocity - as about 20 people have
tried to
tell you.
>Perhaps I can sue the defense contractors, for flogging them all this
needlessly complicated equipment, >which factors in plane speed.
> Jim G
Only if you enjoy making an idiot of yourself in public - which apparently
you do.
-Eric
The Ghost In The Machine
<greenf...@hotmail.com>
wrote
on 5 Aug 2003 17:51:38 -0700
<3c4afb26.03080...@posting.google.com>:
It would foul up the timing of occlusion events, should the
system be so positioned. Failing that, we'd merely see
discrepancies between the observed orbit and the computed one.
I'd have to dig for the details, though.
Randy Poe
Greenfield) wrote:
>But I'll be stuffed before I commit your sin-- A brain-washed bone
>lazy thinker!!!
Ah, the "brainwashing" accusation. In the jargon of the crackpot, this
means "you believe the evidence". The stuff we've been "brainwashed"
by is not theory, you idiot, it's experiment. There's a word for the
style of thinking that denying reality. It's not "free-thinking".
Here's a hint. It begins with "delu" and ends with "sional".
>Throw balls at 10m/sec, and rate of one throw per second. Frequency of
>hits in catchers glove at 100 meters is 10 in 10 seconds=1/sec
>(right!). But if you are on a vehicle travelling towards catcher at
>10m/sec throwing the balls, is he still catching balls at
>1/sec?????/??. And this frequency has increased because the source of
>the balls was moving, just like the photon particle!
That's the explanation for the classical Doppler. However, when direct
measurement shows that the speed of photons is independent of the
source, one needs an alternate explanation. Jumping up and down won't
make the photons change their behavior. One has to explain what one
observes.
The relativity postulates lead to a Doppler effect that occurs even
when the speed of photons is constant, and it occurs because of the
effects of relative velocity on time. One of the many reasons why we
believe this explanation is better than the one you are proposing, is
that there is no way for the classic geometric argument to predict a
transverse Doppler effect, when the source motion is at 90 degrees to
the line of sight. But relativity does predict one.
Guess what experiment shows?
- Randy
Gregory L. Hansen
If I don't think the way you do I must be brainwashed. There's no
other explanation.
Before you go around calling other people bone lazy thinkers, why
don't you open up a book, with pen and paper at hand, and find out how
to derive Doppler shifting in special relativity, and see what the
theory really says about the source dependency of the frequency of
light.
Here's an outline of one method: write out equations of motion for two
wave peaks in the source's frame of reference. Transform to an
observer's frame of reference, and relate the time interval between
the arrival of the two peaks in the observer's frame and the source's
frame. You can do it with high school algebra.
Heck, learn the postulates, at least! The first is the principle of
relativity. The second is that the speed of light in vacuum is the
same in all inertial reference frames. Not the frequency or energy or
other properties, but the speed. Not in a material and not in an
accelerated reference frame, but in vacuum and inertial reference
frames.
I called you a lazy scholar because you clearly hadn't bothered to
study the theory that you were criticizing. When other people
criticized your claims you still didn't seem to feel the need to hit
the library and check up on your position. And I think you're never
going to bother doing the math, but continue making claims of the
theory that just aren't true, claims you could check for yourself if
you were a model of scholarly industry.
If relativity is wrong, it's not for the reasons you've been claiming.
That doesn't mean it's not wrong somewhere. A fundamental assumption
in science is that any theory is somehow incomplete or wrong, that's
what keeps scientists working. But you're not going to find the flaw
by sitting at your computer calling people over usenet bone lazy
thinkers.
Henri Wilson
<ew...@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote:
>In sci.physics, Mathew Orman
><or...@nospam.com>
> wrote
>on Sun, 3 Aug 2003 22:57:44 +0200
><bgjsrn$oq8$1...@news.onet.pl>:
>
>[snip for brevity]
>
>> The real Doppler is the prove that light speed is constant only WRT it's
>> source!
>
>Were that the case we'd observe discrepancies in certain
>binary star systems.
My H-aether theory explains that. Light is emitted at c+v but eventually
settles dwn to the common speed of other EM traveling in the same direction.
Haether is the 'stuff that EM fields are made of' so the passage of any ray of
light affects the properties of the local Haether through which it travels.
>I'm also intrigued by millisecond
>pulsars; such highly accurate sources (basically, natural
>clocks) should be able to easily disprove "nonconstant
>lightspeed" (by proving the alternate, "nonconstant
>frequency").
>
>However, I'd have to look.
>
>[.sigsnip]
Henri Wilson.
See my animations at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm
Jim Greenfield
Get your 20 friends together, teach them how to count and use a
stop-watch...now try the following
get a wire coat-hanger, and bend it into a uniform sine wave. Stick it
out from the bumper of your car. Measure the distance between the
apexes of the waves. Now with the car moving, count the number per
second of troughs past a point with the vehicle moving. Now speed up
car, and see that frequency has increased----BUT wave length is still
the same (coat hanger not squashed). So the frequency has been changed
by vehicle motion. About here, you start ranting that the coat-hanger
Does contract, but I suggest that it is still Your wrong illusion of
what is happening.
When the crests of waves coincide, there is an increase in amplitude
at that point. If the emmitting vehicle is stationary, the points of
increased amplitude caused by the reflected wave will remain in the
same position. With vehicle moving, because there are more crests past
a given point going out, when they are reflected back, the points of
intersection are shifted, due to the increased frequency, which has
been shown to be Not a shortening of wave length, but a direct result
of more crests past a given point per time, produced by vehicle
motion. It is this change of position of the interdiction points which
makes the Doppler radar work, and that in turn was caused by increased
wave(photon) velocity.
Now bring on Kodak, the magic photon,who knows just what velocity and
wave length to produce in any circumstance, to satisfy the almighty
"c"
Jim G
The Ghost In The Machine
<HW@.>
wrote
on Thu, 07 Aug 2003 22:33:11 GMT
<knk5jv0dc6tcslces...@4ax.com>:
> On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 01:51:50 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
> <ew...@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote:
>
>>In sci.physics, Mathew Orman
>><or...@nospam.com>
>> wrote
>>on Sun, 3 Aug 2003 22:57:44 +0200
>><bgjsrn$oq8$1...@news.onet.pl>:
>>
>>[snip for brevity]
>>
>>> The real Doppler is the prove that light speed is constant
>>> only WRT it's source!
>>
>>Were that the case we'd observe discrepancies in certain
>>binary star systems.
>
> My H-aether theory explains that. Light is emitted at c+v
> but eventually settles dwn to the common speed of other
> EM traveling in the same direction.
Define "eventually".
>
> Haether is the 'stuff that EM fields are made of' so the
> passage of any ray of light affects the properties of the
> local Haether through which it travels.
Which means of course that a moving observer will observe
starlight going at c+w, where w is the speed of the observer.
(We're moving at 10^-4 c. The effects should be readily apparent,
if we can get enough light to measure its speed.)
>
>
>>I'm also intrigued by millisecond
>>pulsars; such highly accurate sources (basically, natural
>>clocks) should be able to easily disprove "nonconstant
>>lightspeed" (by proving the alternate, "nonconstant
>>frequency").
>>
>>However, I'd have to look.
>>
>>[.sigsnip]
>
>
> Henri Wilson.
>
> See my animations at:
> http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm
Randy Poe
> stop-watch...now try the following
> get a wire coat-hanger, and bend it into a uniform sine wave. Stick it
> out from the bumper of your car. Measure the distance between the
> apexes of the waves. Now with the car moving, count the number per
> second of troughs past a point with the vehicle moving. Now speed up
> car, and see that frequency has increased----BUT wave length is still
> the same (coat hanger not squashed).
Do you think that this is even a model of the Doppler
effect with sound?
The speed of sound in air is 330 m/sec. If a train is
travelling toward you at 10 m/sec, do you think the sound
waves from that train are moving toward you at 340 m/sec?
Even when they're a mile ahead of the train? What magic
property does the train have to change the way disturbances
in air propagate a mile away?
Or even better, based on your coat hanger model, perhaps
you feel like a sound wave is a continuous rigid thing
sticking out in front of the train and moving at 10 m/sec.
If you're going to pretend Doppler for light and sound
are the same thing, then first I suggest understanding
the sound Doppler effect.
- Randy
Mathew Orman
Yes they are!
For both mechanical and electro-magnetic waves
the true Doppler is the same!
And to satisfy the math Einstein and Lorentz fudged the original Doppler
but it fails on every experiment.
Randy Poe
Is this the theory "If you say it loud enough and often
enough it will become true?" Are you familiar with the
writings of Goering?
> For both mechanical and electro-magnetic waves
> the true Doppler is the same!
> And to satisfy the math Einstein and Lorentz fudged the original Doppler
> but it fails on every experiment.
Really? Can you cite even one experiment where it failed?
Since it "fails on every experiment" that should be
easy to find.
- Randy
Mathew Orman
Relativists cannot provide a single experiment that confirms
Einstein-Lorentz Doppler fudge.
Normal Doppler experiments are all over www.
But if you can find fudged Doppler experiment than I will send you a free
sample of my FTL data transmission line.
Jim Greenfield
If you can do no better than reintroduce this old red herring of
comparing sound (a series of compression fronts through a material,
with light, the progress of photons (through transparent material AND
a vacuum), your argument must be in a state of collapse. It must be
the confusion brought about by even thinking about sound, that causes
the mental blockage of the understanding of increased frequency of
light being caused (in the case of moving source) by the number of
oscillations per time at a point- NOT a reduced wave length.
My arguments relate to vacuum situation, as material mediums obviously
have an effect on light/photon propagation. There is an increasing
preponderence of blue as you dive deeper in the ocean. Is that because
some wave lengths are being absorbed more than others, or all the
photons have been subject to speed change? Hmmmmmmmm.......
I wish I had the equipment to shine a beam of known frquency through a
large aquarium! Would the frquency out the other side be exactly that
which went in ?
Henri Wilson
<ew...@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote:
>In sci.physics, Henri Wilson
><HW@.>
> wrote
>>>[snip for brevity]
>>>
>>>> The real Doppler is the prove that light speed is constant
>>>> only WRT it's source!
>>>
>>>Were that the case we'd observe discrepancies in certain
>>>binary star systems.
>>
>> My H-aether theory explains that. Light is emitted at c+v
>> but eventually settles down to the common speed of other
>> EM traveling in the same direction.
>
>Define "eventually".
Depends how much other EM is present.
H-aether has a 'density' and is slightly 'turbulent'.
Howeever it must be pretty uniform or else distant galaxies would not appear as
clear as they are.
>
>>
>> Haether is the 'stuff that EM fields are made of' so the
>> passage of any ray of light affects the properties of the
>> local Haether through which it travels.
>
>Which means of course that a moving observer will observe
>starlight going at c+w, where w is the speed of the observer.
>
>(We're moving at 10^-4 c. The effects should be readily apparent,
>if we can get enough light to measure its speed.)
Trouble is, light speed very quickly adjusts to the atmospheric 'c'.
"Extinction".
The measurement of OWLS would have to be carries out largely in space. You
might recall my suggested OWLS experiment using starlight from red and blue
shifted sources.
The Ghost In The Machine
<HW@.>
wrote
<gr6gjvoohvugad6ai...@4ax.com>:
> On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 13:19:34 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
> <ew...@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote:
>
>>In sci.physics, Henri Wilson
>><HW@.>
>> wrote
>
>>>>[snip for brevity]
>>>>
>>>>> The real Doppler is the prove that light speed is constant
>>>>> only WRT it's source!
>>>>
>>>>Were that the case we'd observe discrepancies in certain
>>>>binary star systems.
>>>
>>> My H-aether theory explains that. Light is emitted at c+v
>>> but eventually settles down to the common speed of other
>>> EM traveling in the same direction.
>>
>>Define "eventually".
>
> Depends how much other EM is present.
> H-aether has a 'density' and is slightly 'turbulent'.
>
> Howeever it must be pretty uniform or else distant galaxies
> would not appear as clear as they are.
There's evidence of gravitational lensing; the prevailing
wisdom of course is a wandering black hole. In order
to show otherwise you might have to indicate how viscous
your aether is, so that one can determine how long a
whorl stays, well, whirling.
Think of a wooden stirring-spoon in a pot of water,
for example. If you look carefully you'll see the
whorls created thereby, as it moves through the liquid.
>
>>
>>>
>>> Haether is the 'stuff that EM fields are made of' so the
>>> passage of any ray of light affects the properties of the
>>> local Haether through which it travels.
>>
>>Which means of course that a moving observer will observe
>>starlight going at c+w, where w is the speed of the observer.
>>
>>(We're moving at 10^-4 c. The effects should be readily apparent,
>>if we can get enough light to measure its speed.)
>
> Trouble is, light speed very quickly adjusts to the atmospheric 'c'.
How quickly? Does it take a cm, a meter, a km, a megameter?
> "Extinction".
> The measurement of OWLS would have to be carries out largely in space. You
> might recall my suggested OWLS experiment using starlight from red and blue
> shifted sources.
You'd have to send a probe to the sources to do it right.
[.sigsnip]
Henri Wilson
<ew...@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote:
I'm assuming the Haether is very rare throughout space.
One can then draw an analogy with a fine jet of gas being injected into a near
infinite vacuum. The jet would eventualy disperse and change speed as it
dragged other molecules along with it. (or was dragged along by those
molecules)
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Haether is the 'stuff that EM fields are made of' so the
>>>> passage of any ray of light affects the properties of the
>>>> local Haether through which it travels.
>>>
>>>Which means of course that a moving observer will observe
>>>starlight going at c+w, where w is the speed of the observer.
>>>
>>>(We're moving at 10^-4 c. The effects should be readily apparent,
>>>if we can get enough light to measure its speed.)
>>
>> Trouble is, light speed very quickly adjusts to the atmospheric 'c'.
>
>How quickly? Does it take a cm, a meter, a km, a megameter?
I HAVE seen estimates of this. I don't think it has been properly established
though. How the heck could it be measured?
>
>> "Extinction".
>> The measurement of OWLS would have to be carries out largely in space. You
>> might recall my suggested OWLS experiment using starlight from red and blue
>> shifted sources.
>
>You'd have to send a probe to the sources to do it right.
No you don't. On the moon you place a large optical gate, which is used to
create short light pulses from two suitable stars. The pulses are then detected
some distance away. Either they arrive together or they don't.
>
>[.sigsnip]
The Ghost In The Machine
<HW@.>
wrote
<jm9ljvgb56uf343fs...@4ax.com>:
Easy.
OWLS measurement on a variable-length track; the clocks start in
the middle of the measurement. If the adjustment occurs within a
few kilometers we should see differences as we move the endpoint.
We might even see differences if the adjustment occurs within a
few hundred thousand kilometers, if the measurements are sensitive
enough (and the track sufficiently long).
Ideally the endpoints would be switchable as well, to allow the
OWLS to be measured in either direction.
>
>>
>>> "Extinction".
>>> The measurement of OWLS would have to be carries out largely in space. You
>>> might recall my suggested OWLS experiment using starlight from red and blue
>>> shifted sources.
>>
>>You'd have to send a probe to the sources to do it right.
>
> No you don't. On the moon you place a large optical gate,
> which is used to create short light pulses from two
> suitable stars. The pulses are then detected
> some distance away. Either they arrive together or they don't.
OK, dumb question: what's an "optical gate"? Is that a fancy term
for a mirror? If so, no creation is involved, merely reflection.
Not that it matters; by the time it reaches the moon it's at
c (relative to the local H-aether surrounding the Earth) anyway.
Unless the moon's velocity stirs up things.
Henri Wilson
<ew...@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote:
>In sci.physics, Henri Wilson
><HW@.>
>>>>
That isn't 'easy'. It is well nigh impossible! The source velocity wrt the
clocks would have to be considerable.
>
>>
>>>
>>>> "Extinction".
>>>> The measurement of OWLS would have to be carries out largely in space. You
>>>> might recall my suggested OWLS experiment using starlight from red and blue
>>>> shifted sources.
>>>
>>>You'd have to send a probe to the sources to do it right.
>>
>> No you don't. On the moon you place a large optical gate,
>> which is used to create short light pulses from two
>> suitable stars. The pulses are then detected
>> some distance away. Either they arrive together or they don't.
>
>OK, dumb question: what's an "optical gate"? Is that a fancy term
>for a mirror? If so, no creation is involved, merely reflection.
An optical gate is a device that can be made transparent or opaque in an
extremely short time. The only one I know about is a gadget called a 'Kerr
Cell' which is normally opaque but can be made transparent by applying a
voltage across it. Don't know the latest technology - but I'm sure such exists.
>
>Not that it matters; by the time it reaches the moon it's at
>c (relative to the local H-aether surrounding the Earth) anyway.
>Unless the moon's velocity stirs up things.
Not necessarily. The space between other stars and the Moon is pretty devoid of
matter as well as EM. My theory states that the time taken for light to attain
'local c' s (kind of) inversely proportional to the intensity of all the other
light traveling in the same direction (or which has a component thereof). So
even if the sources were hundreds of light years away, there could still be
differences in velocity.
The Ghost In The Machine
<HW@.>
on Thu, 14 Aug 2003 08:55:23 GMT
<pqimjvg3qcma99ta5...@4ax.com>:
The source velocity could be provided by a high-speed
rotating wheel with laser LEDs mounted along the periphery.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> "Extinction".
>>>>> The measurement of OWLS would have to be carries out largely in space. You
>>>>> might recall my suggested OWLS experiment using starlight from red and blue
>>>>> shifted sources.
>>>>
>>>>You'd have to send a probe to the sources to do it right.
>>>
>>> No you don't. On the moon you place a large optical gate,
>>> which is used to create short light pulses from two
>>> suitable stars. The pulses are then detected
>>> some distance away. Either they arrive together or they don't.
>>
>>OK, dumb question: what's an "optical gate"? Is that a fancy term
>>for a mirror? If so, no creation is involved, merely reflection.
>
> An optical gate is a device that can be made transparent
> or opaque in an extremely short time. The only one I know
> about is a gadget called a 'Kerr Cell' which is normally
> opaque but can be made transparent by applying a voltage
> across it. Don't know the latest technology - but I'm sure
> such exists.
Sounds like a variant of liquid crystal. Or one can
simply use a much simpler device: a mechanical shuttle,
such as those used in older cameras.
It would have to be a fairly big gate, though. We can
barely see the landing site of the moon missions, never
mind a device the size of, say, a Lunar Rover, with an
Earthbound or Hubble-type telescope.
How big did you envision this device being?
>
>>
>>Not that it matters; by the time it reaches the moon it's at
>>c (relative to the local H-aether surrounding the Earth) anyway.
>>Unless the moon's velocity stirs up things.
>
> Not necessarily. The space between other stars and the Moon
> is pretty devoid of matter as well as EM. My theory states
> that the time taken for light to attain 'local c' s (kind of)
> inversely proportional to the intensity of all the other
> light traveling in the same direction (or which has a component
> thereof). So even if the sources were hundreds of light years
> away, there could still be differences in velocity.
Between what and what?
[1] Star #1 and the moon, and star #2 and the moon?
[2] Star #1 and the moon, and star #1 and the Earth?
>
>>
>>[.sigsnip]
>
>
> Henri Wilson.
>
> See my animations at:
> http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm
--
Henri Wilson
<ew...@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote:
>>>> I HAVE seen estimates of this. I don't think it has been
>>>> properly established though. How the heck could it be measured?
>>>
>>>Easy.
>>>
>>>OWLS measurement on a variable-length track; the clocks start in
>>>the middle of the measurement. If the adjustment occurs within a
>>>few kilometers we should see differences as we move the endpoint.
>>>We might even see differences if the adjustment occurs within a
>>>few hundred thousand kilometers, if the measurements are sensitive
>>>enough (and the track sufficiently long).
>>>
>>>Ideally the endpoints would be switchable as well, to allow the
>>>OWLS to be measured in either direction.
>>
>> That isn't 'easy'. It is well nigh impossible! The source velocity
>> wrt the clocks would have to be considerable.
>
>The source velocity could be provided by a high-speed
>rotating wheel with laser LEDs mounted along the periphery.
No You can't do it that way. The differences would not be measureable. Give me
some figures if you disagree. I once looked into this type of experiment and
the thing simply cannot be rotated fast enough.
>> An optical gate is a device that can be made transparent
>> or opaque in an extremely short time. The only one I know
>> about is a gadget called a 'Kerr Cell' which is normally
>> opaque but can be made transparent by applying a voltage
>> across it. Don't know the latest technology - but I'm sure
>> such exists.
>
>Sounds like a variant of liquid crystal. Or one can
>simply use a much simpler device: a mechanical shuttle,
>such as those used in older cameras.
It is a liquid crystal device. yes.
At moon distances, certainly a mechanical shutter might work. Let's see.
Say the doppler differences from two suitable stars indicates that their speeds
relative to us differs by .001c.
The travel time difference from the moon would be 0.1% of D/c which is about 1
millisec.
So the shutter would have to open and close in considerably less time than this
in order to enable the earth observer to separate the two pulses. A rotating
shutter could probably do the job but it has to be pretty large to let enough
light through.
>
>It would have to be a fairly big gate, though. We can
>barely see the landing site of the moon missions, never
>mind a device the size of, say, a Lunar Rover, with an
>Earthbound or Hubble-type telescope.
>
>How big did you envision this device being?
Depends on the efficiency of the photomultiplier use in the telescope. PM's are
extremely sensitive and quick so probably about a metre.
There would be no point in the shutter being larger than the size of the star
image at moon distance.
Let's work that out.
Say the star is 10E5 LY away and has diameter 2E6, roughly like our sun.
Its image size at the moon is about 2E6.(38E4/3E20) or 2.5E-6 metres.
It is just a point.
Therefore the gate would best be the same size as the telescope mirror.
I cannot see any problems here. Even a 30cm telescope gets plenty of light from
a single star in 1 ms.
I think the biggest problem would be tracking the two stars so that they are
both simultaneously aligned to the gate and telescope. Still that's really no
harder than any telescope tracking system I suppose.
>
>>
>>>
>>>Not that it matters; by the time it reaches the moon it's at
>>>c (relative to the local H-aether surrounding the Earth) anyway.
>>>Unless the moon's velocity stirs up things.
>>
>> Not necessarily. The space between other stars and the Moon
>> is pretty devoid of matter as well as EM. My theory states
>> that the time taken for light to attain 'local c' s (kind of)
>> inversely proportional to the intensity of all the other
>> light traveling in the same direction (or which has a component
>> thereof). So even if the sources were hundreds of light years
>> away, there could still be differences in velocity.
>
>Between what and what?
>
>[1] Star #1 and the moon, and star #2 and the moon?
>[2] Star #1 and the moon, and star #1 and the Earth?
The velocity of light leaving Star1 and that leaving Star2 could still be
significantly different at both the moon and just outside the earth's
atmosphere.
I don't know enough star data to know how far away suitable stars would have to
be for any effect to be observable. De Sitter's observations on binaries would
tell us something. We would have to use stars that were closer than the one's
he observed and preferably traveling relatively a lot faster. My Haether theory
itself casts doubt on the likelihood of a positive result.
The Ghost In The Machine
<HW@.>
wrote
<e1dojv8q4ra38r794...@4ax.com>:
> On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 16:00:11 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
> <ew...@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>>> I HAVE seen estimates of this. I don't think it has been
>>>>> properly established though. How the heck could it be measured?
>>>>
>>>>Easy.
>>>>
>>>>OWLS measurement on a variable-length track; the clocks start in
>>>>the middle of the measurement. If the adjustment occurs within a
>>>>few kilometers we should see differences as we move the endpoint.
>>>>We might even see differences if the adjustment occurs within a
>>>>few hundred thousand kilometers, if the measurements are sensitive
>>>>enough (and the track sufficiently long).
>>>>
>>>>Ideally the endpoints would be switchable as well, to allow the
>>>>OWLS to be measured in either direction.
>>>
>>> That isn't 'easy'. It is well nigh impossible! The source velocity
>>> wrt the clocks would have to be considerable.
>>
>>The source velocity could be provided by a high-speed
>>rotating wheel with laser LEDs mounted along the periphery.
>
> No You can't do it that way. The differences would not be
> measureable. Give me some figures if you disagree.
> I once looked into this type of experiment and
> the thing simply cannot be rotated fast enough.
10,000 RPM
10 cm radius (20 cm diameter)
10,000 RPM = 166.66 revs/second = 333.33 * pi radians/second.
Edge velocity = 33.3 * pi m/s = 105 m/s = 3.49 * 10^-6 c.
It's hard to say, but I don't see why one couldn't measure
an effect of a few parts per million -- assuming the
device doesn't fly apart. (Discs for hard drives aren't
"lumpy" and are only 5 1/4" = 13.3 cm in diameter at most.
Most of them nowadays are smaller.)
>
>
>>> An optical gate is a device that can be made transparent
>>> or opaque in an extremely short time. The only one I know
>>> about is a gadget called a 'Kerr Cell' which is normally
>>> opaque but can be made transparent by applying a voltage
>>> across it. Don't know the latest technology - but I'm sure
>>> such exists.
>>
>>Sounds like a variant of liquid crystal. Or one can
>>simply use a much simpler device: a mechanical shuttle,
>>such as those used in older cameras.
>
> It is a liquid crystal device. yes.
>
> At moon distances, certainly a mechanical shutter might work.
> Let's see. Say the doppler differences from two suitable stars
> indicates that their speeds relative to us differs by .001c.
>
> The travel time difference from the moon would be 0.1% of D/c
> which is about 1 millisec.
>
> So the shutter would have to open and close in considerably
> less time than this in order to enable the earth observer to
> separate the two pulses. A rotating shutter could probably do
> the job but it has to be pretty large to let enough light through.
A simpler device might be to use a toothed wheel to chop up
the light beams. If one wants to get fancy one could use
two toothed wheels (one per beam).
Hardly original, of course. :-)
>
>>
>>It would have to be a fairly big gate, though. We can
>>barely see the landing site of the moon missions, never
>>mind a device the size of, say, a Lunar Rover, with an
>>Earthbound or Hubble-type telescope.
>>
>>How big did you envision this device being?
>
> Depends on the efficiency of the photomultiplier use in the telescope. PM's are
> extremely sensitive and quick so probably about a metre.
>
> There would be no point in the shutter being larger than the size of the star
> image at moon distance.
>
> Let's work that out.
> Say the star is 10E5 LY away and has diameter 2E6, roughly like our sun.
Sun's radius is 7 * 10^8 m. What units are you using, miles?
>
> Its image size at the moon is about 2E6.(38E4/3E20) or 2.5E-6 metres.
> It is just a point.
> Therefore the gate would best be the same size as the telescope mirror.
>
> I cannot see any problems here. Even a 30cm telescope gets plenty
> of light from a single star in 1 ms.
Somehow, I rather doubt that. :-) I'd have to work it out though.
>
> I think the biggest problem would be tracking the two stars
> so that they are both simultaneously aligned to the gate and
> telescope. Still that's really no harder than any telescope
> tracking system I suppose.
Depends on whether the gates are allowed to move or not.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Not that it matters; by the time it reaches the moon it's at
>>>>c (relative to the local H-aether surrounding the Earth) anyway.
>>>>Unless the moon's velocity stirs up things.
>>>
>>> Not necessarily. The space between other stars and the Moon
>>> is pretty devoid of matter as well as EM. My theory states
>>> that the time taken for light to attain 'local c' s (kind of)
>>> inversely proportional to the intensity of all the other
>>> light traveling in the same direction (or which has a component
>>> thereof). So even if the sources were hundreds of light years
>>> away, there could still be differences in velocity.
>>
>>Between what and what?
>>
>>[1] Star #1 and the moon, and star #2 and the moon?
>>[2] Star #1 and the moon, and star #1 and the Earth?
>
> The velocity of light leaving Star1 and that leaving Star2
> could still be significantly different at both the moon and
> just outside the earth's atmosphere.
Why? The local H-aether is relatively still and light will
run at c relative to the local H-aether, if I understand
your theory correctly. The only component that you might
see is the Moon's motion.
> I don't know enough star data to know how far away suitable
> stars would have to be for any effect to be observable.
> De Sitter's observations on binaries would tell us something.
> We would have to use stars that were closer than the one's
> he observed and preferably traveling relatively a lot faster.
> My Haether theory itself casts doubt on the likelihood of
> a positive result.
Your H-aether theory suggests the same results as SR/GR:
a constant light-speed relative to an observer (unless
said observer is equipped with something that can perturb
the H-aether -- one might call it an H-aether jet).
>
> Henri Wilson.
>
> See my animations at:
> http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm
--
Henri Wilson
<ew...@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote:
Because you would be looking for a 'few parts per million' of a few parts per
million (the travel time of light used in your expt.).
>
>>
>>
>>>> An optical gate is a device that can be made transparent
>>>> or opaque in an extremely short time. The only one I know
>>>> about is a gadget called a 'Kerr Cell' which is normally
>>>> opaque but can be made transparent by applying a voltage
>>>> across it. Don't know the latest technology - but I'm sure
>>>> such exists.
>>>
>>>Sounds like a variant of liquid crystal. Or one can
>>>simply use a much simpler device: a mechanical shuttle,
>>>such as those used in older cameras.
>>
>> It is a liquid crystal device. yes.
>>
>> At moon distances, certainly a mechanical shutter might work.
>> Let's see. Say the doppler differences from two suitable stars
>> indicates that their speeds relative to us differs by .001c.
>>
>> The travel time difference from the moon would be 0.1% of D/c
>> which is about 1 millisec.
>>
>> So the shutter would have to open and close in considerably
>> less time than this in order to enable the earth observer to
>> separate the two pulses. A rotating shutter could probably do
>> the job but it has to be pretty large to let enough light through.
>
>A simpler device might be to use a toothed wheel to chop up
>the light beams. If one wants to get fancy one could use
>two toothed wheels (one per beam).
>
>Hardly original, of course. :-)
Good enough though.
>
>>
>>>
>>>It would have to be a fairly big gate, though. We can
>>>barely see the landing site of the moon missions, never
>>>mind a device the size of, say, a Lunar Rover, with an
>>>Earthbound or Hubble-type telescope.
>>>
>>>How big did you envision this device being?
>>
>> Depends on the efficiency of the photomultiplier use in the telescope. PM's are
>> extremely sensitive and quick so probably about a metre.
>>
>> There would be no point in the shutter being larger than the size of the star
>> image at moon distance.
>>
>> Let's work that out.
>> Say the star is 10E5 LY away and has diameter 2E6, roughly like our sun.
>
>Sun's radius is 7 * 10^8 m. What units are you using, miles?
>
>>
>> Its image size at the moon is about 2E6.(38E4/3E20) or 2.5E-6 metres.
>> It is just a point.
>> Therefore the gate would best be the same size as the telescope mirror.
>>
>> I cannot see any problems here. Even a 30cm telescope gets plenty
>> of light from a single star in 1 ms.
>
>Somehow, I rather doubt that. :-) I'd have to work it out though.
You can see plenty of bright stars through a 30 cm telescope with the naked
eye. A fast PM would easily pick up a 1ms pulse.
>
>>
>> I think the biggest problem would be tracking the two stars
>> so that they are both simultaneously aligned to the gate and
>> telescope. Still that's really no harder than any telescope
>> tracking system I suppose.
>
>Depends on whether the gates are allowed to move or not.
Tracking would be done with a plane mirror. No lenses could be used because
they might give the light a common speed.
Actually two adjacent gates would be needed because it would be impossible to
track two different stars and send their images through the one gate towards
the same telescope. But that presents no problem. Mechanical gates could be
synched perfectly.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Not that it matters; by the time it reaches the moon it's at
>>>>>c (relative to the local H-aether surrounding the Earth) anyway.
>>>>>Unless the moon's velocity stirs up things.
>>>>
>>>> Not necessarily. The space between other stars and the Moon
>>>> is pretty devoid of matter as well as EM. My theory states
>>>> that the time taken for light to attain 'local c' s (kind of)
>>>> inversely proportional to the intensity of all the other
>>>> light traveling in the same direction (or which has a component
>>>> thereof). So even if the sources were hundreds of light years
>>>> away, there could still be differences in velocity.
>>>
>>>Between what and what?
>>>
>>>[1] Star #1 and the moon, and star #2 and the moon?
>>>[2] Star #1 and the moon, and star #1 and the Earth?
>>
>> The velocity of light leaving Star1 and that leaving Star2
>> could still be significantly different at both the moon and
>> just outside the earth's atmosphere.
>
>Why? The local H-aether is relatively still and light will
>run at c relative to the local H-aether, if I understand
>your theory correctly. The only component that you might
>see is the Moon's motion.
No, the theory says that H-aether is very rare in remote space and it might
take millions of LY for beam to settle down to the local c. Even then, its
very presence might alter that 'c'.
>
>> I don't know enough star data to know how far away suitable
>> stars would have to be for any effect to be observable.
>> De Sitter's observations on binaries would tell us something.
>> We would have to use stars that were closer than the one's
>> he observed and preferably traveling relatively a lot faster.
>> My Haether theory itself casts doubt on the likelihood of
>> a positive result.
>
>Your H-aether theory suggests the same results as SR/GR:
>a constant light-speed relative to an observer (unless
>said observer is equipped with something that can perturb
>the H-aether -- one might call it an H-aether jet).
Basically I say that light speed immediately adjacent to a source will be c wrt
that source. It will then change according to the density and density
distributions of H-aether along its path.
The Ghost In The Machine
<HW@.>
wrote
<8q1rjv08me586uiub...@4ax.com>:
How do we align this beastie? The Moon does move, you know. :-)
A sidereal orbit is about 27 days, which translates to
360 * 60 * 60 / (27 * 86400) = 5/9 arc-seconds per second.
>
>>
>>>
>>> I think the biggest problem would be tracking the two stars
>>> so that they are both simultaneously aligned to the gate and
>>> telescope. Still that's really no harder than any telescope
>>> tracking system I suppose.
>>
>>Depends on whether the gates are allowed to move or not.
>
> Tracking would be done with a plane mirror. No lenses could be
> used because they might give the light a common speed.
Might? They *would*. Light refraction is dependent on
speed differences.
Millions of light-years, eh? There's probably a few
spectroscopic doubles a *lot* closer than that... :-)
>
>>
>>> I don't know enough star data to know how far away suitable
>>> stars would have to be for any effect to be observable.
>>> De Sitter's observations on binaries would tell us something.
>>> We would have to use stars that were closer than the one's
>>> he observed and preferably traveling relatively a lot faster.
>>> My Haether theory itself casts doubt on the likelihood of
>>> a positive result.
>>
>>Your H-aether theory suggests the same results as SR/GR:
>>a constant light-speed relative to an observer (unless
>>said observer is equipped with something that can perturb
>>the H-aether -- one might call it an H-aether jet).
>
> Basically I say that light speed immediately adjacent to a
> source will be c wrt that source.
Local c. I'm not sure how to compute that c. What's
the function between local light speed and light intensity?
> It will then change according to the density and density
> distributions of H-aether along its path.
>
>
>
> Henri Wilson.
>
> See my animations at:
> http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm
Starblade Darksquall
> Mathew Orman wrote:
> >
> > "Jim Greenfield" <greenf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:3c4afb26.03072...@posting.google.com...
> > > Having been ridiculed for not studying radar, in my claims that the
> > > velocity of light is dependent on the velocity of its source, I went
> > > in search of one. Where? To the local police car, who just happened to
> > > have two radar speed detectors. One can be used independently on the
> > > roadside to detect speeding motorists- the other is connected to the
> > > police car's speedo!!! Guess what??? With the independent one out the
> > > window, and completely free of the police car, the neighbour's shed
> > > was clocked at 60 mph!!! And still EMR is source independent?? Get a
> > > grip!!!
> > > Jim G
> >
> > But your experiment only proves that Police Radar Speed Detector is working
> > as specified!
> > It has at best 1% accuracy,
> > but for 60 mph one needs ten orders of magnitude better resolution and
> > accuracy!
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Mathew Orman
> > www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
> > www.radio-faster-than-light.com
>
> looney bin. Sheesh!
>
> Got any plans for FTL cars?
>
Yeah! But don't turn on the headlights...
> Chuck
(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)
Jim Greenfield
> On 4 Aug 2003 20:52:33 -0700, greenf...@hotmail.com (Jim
> Greenfield) wrote:
> > "the Time of Flight"!! is the velocity of the plane. The pilot
> >cannot tell the velocity of the target, unless his own air-speed is
> >factored in. Thank you for yor support!
>
> Here's the calculation:
>
> Range = ct/2
>
> (The factor of 2 comes from the fact that the pulse travelled the
> distance to the target and back again).
and you STILL don't see your error??? The distance back to the plane
IS LESS (with plane approaching target), because the plane didn't stop
in mid air and wait for the EM particle to return, once it emmitted
the particle
Jim G
>
> Tell me how this supports your position that the plane's velocity
> needs to be "factored in".
>
> - Randy
Jim Greenfield
> On 3 Aug 2003 22:26:57 -0700, greenf...@hotmail.com (Jim
> Greenfield) wrote:
> >OoOR- I could take a radar which is set for stationary application
> >relative to the traffic, and spend a lifetime trying to figure a way
> >to justify the fact that it gives a different reading when mounted on
> >a moving source,
>
> explain a "fact" which is untrue. The Doppler shift will ALWAYS be the
> same for the same relative velocity.
>
> - Randy
Haven't you overlooked something? There are three 'relatives' in the
situation:
the radar relative to the road- the radar relative to the target- the
target relative to the road. When 1 is zero, it can be ignored- at any
motion must be factored.
Jim G
Randy Poe
> Randy Poe <rpo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<mbj0jv8l6ov28ssq1...@4ax.com>...
> > On 3 Aug 2003 22:26:57 -0700, greenf...@hotmail.com (Jim
> > Greenfield) wrote:
> > >OoOR- I could take a radar which is set for stationary application
> > >relative to the traffic, and spend a lifetime trying to figure a way
> > >to justify the fact that it gives a different reading when mounted on
> > >a moving source,
> >
> > That would be a waste of your lifetime, since you are trying to
> > explain a "fact" which is untrue. The Doppler shift will ALWAYS be the
> > same for the same relative velocity.
> >
> > - Randy
>
> Haven't you overlooked something?
No.
> There are three 'relatives' in the
> situation:
But only one being measured by the target doppler.
> the radar relative to the road-
I don't know about police radar, but in military radar this
is measured by the Doppler return from the road (or rather from
all fixed earth-bound sources). It's part of the data collected.
> the radar relative to the target-
This is the only thing measured by the doppler shift in
the target echo. Are you claiming something otherwise?
> the target relative to the road.
There is no direct measurement of this.
> When 1 is zero,
The number 1 is never equal to 0.
> it can be ignored- at any
> motion must be factored.
Once again: The doppler shift will ALWAYS be the same for
the same relative velocity. If radar and target are approaching
each other at 60 mph, you will see the same doppler shift
whether the target is fixed on the ground and the radar
is moving, the radar is fixed and the target is moving,
or both are moving relative to the ground.
Do you disagree with this statement?
- Randy
Henri Wilson
<ew...@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote:
>In sci.physics, Henri Wilson
>>>> Let's work that out.
>>>> Say the star is 10E5 LY away and has diameter 2E6, roughly like our sun.
>>>
>>>Sun's radius is 7 * 10^8 m. What units are you using, miles?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Its image size at the moon is about 2E6.(38E4/3E20) or 2.5E-6 metres.
>>>> It is just a point.
>>>> Therefore the gate would best be the same size as the telescope mirror.
>>>>
>>>> I cannot see any problems here. Even a 30cm telescope gets plenty
>>>> of light from a single star in 1 ms.
>>>
>>>Somehow, I rather doubt that. :-) I'd have to work it out though.
>>
>> You can see plenty of bright stars through a 30 cm telescope with
>> the naked eye. A fast PM would easily pick up a 1ms pulse.
>
>How do we align this beastie? The Moon does move, you know. :-)
>A sidereal orbit is about 27 days, which translates to
>360 * 60 * 60 / (27 * 86400) = 5/9 arc-seconds per second.
I now have a much better idea.
Will start a new thread when I get it straight.
>>>Why? The local H-aether is relatively still and light will
>>>run at c relative to the local H-aether, if I understand
>>>your theory correctly. The only component that you might
>>>see is the Moon's motion.
>>
>> No, the theory says that H-aether is very rare in remote space
>> and it might take millions of LY for beam to settle down to
>> the local c. Even then, its very presence might alter that 'c'.
>
>Millions of light-years, eh? There's probably a few
>spectroscopic doubles a *lot* closer than that... :-)
that doesn't upset the theory.
>
>>>
>>>Your H-aether theory suggests the same results as SR/GR:
>>>a constant light-speed relative to an observer (unless
>>>said observer is equipped with something that can perturb
>>>the H-aether -- one might call it an H-aether jet).
>>
>> Basically I say that light speed immediately adjacent to a
>> source will be c wrt that source.
>
>Local c. I'm not sure how to compute that c. What's
>the function between local light speed and light intensity?
In a (matter) vacuum and in the absence of all other EM, light from a source
moves at c relative to that source. Intensity should not affect the local
velocity.
Consider this experiment.
A long rod has a source at one end and a mirror at the other. No matter how the
rod moves (in vacuum and EM free space), light pulses reflected from the mirror
will take the same time to return to the source. This is a TWLS experiment but
is legitimate because there is no H-aether present, except that contained in
the pulse itself. (Actually the experiment would require that the forward and
return light was slightly offset).
Jim Greenfield
> > On 4 Aug 2003 20:52:33 -0700, greenf...@hotmail.com (Jim
> > Greenfield) wrote:
> > > "the Time of Flight"!! is the velocity of the plane. The pilot
> > >cannot tell the velocity of the target, unless his own air-speed is
> > >factored in. Thank you for yor support!
> >
> > Here's the calculation:
> >
> > Range = ct/2
You (and others) just claimed that Doppler radar DOES NOT factor in
the velocity of light!! Yet here it is again!! For how long can you
sustain this contradiction? But I guess you have been practising the
ways and means for years (about 80)
> >
> > (The factor of 2 comes from the fact that the pulse travelled the
> > distance to the target and back again).
>
> and you STILL don't see your error??? The distance back to the plane
> IS LESS (with plane approaching target), because the plane didn't stop
> in mid air and wait for the EM particle to return, once it emmitted
> the particle
>
> Jim G
> >
> > Tell me how this supports your position that the plane's velocity
> > needs to be "factored in".
> >
> > - Randy
Because its velocity alters the position to which the reflected
particle returns (how many more times????) If the plane is doing say
500k/h, and this is not factored in, an error of 500k/h will be made
in calculating target speed. (on direct line- otherwise employ
vectors)
Jim G
Jim Greenfield
> greenf...@hotmail.com (Jim Greenfield) wrote in message news:<3c4afb26.03081...@posting.google.com>...
> > Randy Poe <rpo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<mbj0jv8l6ov28ssq1...@4ax.com>...
> > > On 3 Aug 2003 22:26:57 -0700, greenf...@hotmail.com (Jim
> > > Greenfield) wrote:
> > > >OoOR- I could take a radar which is set for stationary application
> > > >relative to the traffic, and spend a lifetime trying to figure a way
> > > >to justify the fact that it gives a different reading when mounted on
> > > >a moving source,
> > >
> > > That would be a waste of your lifetime, since you are trying to
> > > explain a "fact" which is untrue. The Doppler shift will ALWAYS be the
> > > same for the same relative velocity.
> > >
> > > - Randy
> >
> > Haven't you overlooked something?
>
> No.
>
> > There are three 'relatives' in the
> > situation:
>
> But only one being measured by the target doppler.
I'd have thought that the pilot would be interested in the targets
closing speed (to him) AND its ground speed (air speed) at least for
identifying purposes
>
> > the radar relative to the road-
>
> I don't know about police radar, but in military radar this
> is measured by the Doppler return from the road (or rather from
> all fixed earth-bound sources). It's part of the data collected.
Not much to compare the background to at 40,00 feet!
>
> > the radar relative to the target-
>
> This is the only thing measured by the doppler shift in
> the target echo. Are you claiming something otherwise?
>
> > the target relative to the road.
>
> There is no direct measurement of this.
>
> > When 1 is zero,
>
> The number 1 is never equal to 0.
More of your deliberate obfuscation! A three year old can read that
I was referring to point 1, not number 1
>
> > it can be ignored- at any
> > motion must be factored.
>
> Once again: The doppler shift will ALWAYS be the same for
> the same relative velocity. If radar and target are approaching
> each other at 60 mph, you will see the same doppler shift
> whether the target is fixed on the ground and the radar
> is moving, the radar is fixed and the target is moving,
> or both are moving relative to the ground.
>
> Do you disagree with this statement?
>
> - Randy
Of course not (I agree, OK?)
What you are missing, is that if EM particle velocity was
independent of its source, the velocity of the radar unit relative to
the road would make no difference, and would not need to be factored
in to calculations of the target velocity. It is, because IT IS
(source dependent)
Jim G
Randy Poe
Greenfield) wrote:
>Randy Poe <rpo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<2gj0jv4cdj3c8d3g9...@4ax.com>...
>> On 4 Aug 2003 20:52:33 -0700, greenf...@hotmail.com (Jim
>> Greenfield) wrote:
>> > "the Time of Flight"!! is the velocity of the plane. The pilot
>> >cannot tell the velocity of the target, unless his own air-speed is
>> >factored in. Thank you for yor support!
>>
>> Here's the calculation:
>>
>> Range = ct/2
>>
>> (The factor of 2 comes from the fact that the pulse travelled the
>> distance to the target and back again).
>
>and you STILL don't see your error??? The distance back to the plane
>IS LESS (with plane approaching target), because the plane didn't stop
>in mid air and wait for the EM particle to return, once it emmitted
>the particle
Actually, for all intents and purposes it did.
Work out the travel time for a target 10 km away and tell me how far
the plane moved and how egregious this "error" is.
- Randy
Randy Poe
Greenfield) wrote:
>greenf...@hotmail.com (Jim Greenfield) wrote in message news:<3c4afb26.03081...@posting.google.com>...
>> Randy Poe <rpo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<2gj0jv4cdj3c8d3g9...@4ax.com>...
>> > On 4 Aug 2003 20:52:33 -0700, greenf...@hotmail.com (Jim
>> > Greenfield) wrote:
>> > > "the Time of Flight"!! is the velocity of the plane. The pilot
>> > >cannot tell the velocity of the target, unless his own air-speed is
>> > >factored in. Thank you for yor support!
>> >
>> > Here's the calculation:
>> >
>> > Range = ct/2
>
>You (and others) just claimed that Doppler radar DOES NOT factor in
>the velocity of light!!
Not sure what you mean by "factor in the velocity of light", but the
above is a range calculation by time of flight, not Doppler radar.
> Yet here it is again!!
Uh, no it isn't.
> For how long can you
>sustain this contradiction?
Why don't you put the two statements you think are contradictory
together and we'll talk about them?
Time of flight depends on speed. Do you think somebody is saying
something that contradicts that?
Doppler measurement is not based on time of flight. Different
measurement.
Look at the exchange above. I told you that range is based on time of
flight. You said "time of flight is the velocity of the plane",
whatever that means. I show you the calculation for RANGE in terms of
TIME OF FLIGHT. The question, is "does this use the velocity of the
plane?" The answer is "no".
>Because its velocity alters the position to which the reflected
>particle returns (how many more times????)
Not by enough to matter.
> If the plane is doing say
>500k/h, and this is not factored in, an error of 500k/h will be made
>in calculating target speed.
Why are you confusing speed and range? The exchange above is about
distance. I write an equation for range, you tell me I'm talking about
Doppler. I talk about velocity, you tell me I'm talking about range.
One is a distance, one is a speed. Do you understand that they're two
different measurements?
Yes, if you want to know target velocity relative to the ground, you
need to know what your speed is relative to the ground. Why?
Because DOPPLER RADAR MEASURES TARGET SPEED RELATIVE TO YOU.
Now do you or don't you believe that DOPPLER SHIFT ONLY DEPENDS ON
SPEED RELATIVE TO YOU?
- Randy
Randy Poe
Greenfield) wrote:
>rpo...@yahoo.com (Randy Poe) wrote in message news:<585ab5d8.0308...@posting.google.com>...
>> greenf...@hotmail.com (Jim Greenfield) wrote in message news:<3c4afb26.03081...@posting.google.com>...
>> > There are three 'relatives' in the
>> > situation:
>>
>> But only one being measured by the target doppler.
>
>I'd have thought that the pilot would be interested in the targets
>closing speed (to him) AND its ground speed (air speed) at least for
>identifying purposes
Yes, but that's not the question. Are you shifting questions
deliberately or are you really unable to remember from post to post
what question you asked?
>>
>> > the radar relative to the road-
>>
>> I don't know about police radar, but in military radar this
>> is measured by the Doppler return from the road (or rather from
>> all fixed earth-bound sources). It's part of the data collected.
>
>Not much to compare the background to at 40,00 feet!
Au contraire, measurement of the ground from 40000 feet is
extraordinarily important in being able to locate your targets,
because so much of the energy coming back to you is coming from that
ground.
> What you are missing, is that if EM particle velocity was
>independent of its source, the velocity of the radar unit relative to
>the road would make no difference,
Whaaa?
>and would not need to be factored
>in to calculations of the target velocity. It is, because IT IS
>(source dependent)
That doesn't follow at all.
If I measure that A is moving at 10 mph relative to B, and I want to
know how A is moving relative to C, I need to know how B moves
relative to C.
That's just v1 + v2 = v3.
That has nothing to do with how fast the energy being used to make
those measurements is moving. NOWHERE does an assumption of the signal
velocity come into adding v1 to v2 to obtain v3.
- Randy
Jim Greenfield
> On 17 Aug 2003 20:35:18 -0700, greenf...@hotmail.com (Jim
> Greenfield) wrote:
>
> >Randy Poe <rpo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<2gj0jv4cdj3c8d3g9...@4ax.com>...
> >> On 4 Aug 2003 20:52:33 -0700, greenf...@hotmail.com (Jim
> >> Greenfield) wrote:
> >> > "the Time of Flight"!! is the velocity of the plane. The pilot
> >> >cannot tell the velocity of the target, unless his own air-speed is
> >> >factored in. Thank you for yor support!
> >>
> >> Here's the calculation:
> >>
> >> Range = ct/2
> >>
> >> (The factor of 2 comes from the fact that the pulse travelled the
> >> distance to the target and back again).
> >
> >and you STILL don't see your error??? The distance back to the plane
> >IS LESS (with plane approaching target), because the plane didn't stop
> >in mid air and wait for the EM particle to return, once it emmitted
> >the particle
>
> Actually, for all intents and purposes it did.
Then I certainly won't fly with you! in this case, with the plane
radar emmitting continuously, it must fall straight out of the sky!
"For all intents etc " just doesn't work, and is yet another in a
litany of cop outs.
>
> Work out the travel time for a target 10 km away and tell me how far
> the plane moved and how egregious this "error" is.
>
> - Randy
Why should I bother? Even if the result is a fraction of a millimeter
it proves my point: that the motion of the radar source changes the
point of interaction with the returning signal. (That will do- I
haven't the flair to explain colour to the blind)
Jim G
Randy Poe
Greenfield) wrote:
>Randy Poe <rpo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<t3s5kv8rfsiagmt20...@4ax.com>...
>> >and you STILL don't see your error??? The distance back to the plane
>> >IS LESS (with plane approaching target), because the plane didn't stop
>> >in mid air and wait for the EM particle to return, once it emmitted
>> >the particle
>>
>> Actually, for all intents and purposes it did.
>
> Then I certainly won't fly with you! in this case, with the plane
>radar emmitting continuously, it must fall straight out of the sky!
>"For all intents etc " just doesn't work,
Doesn't it? Why don't you do what I said below?
> and is yet another in a
>litany of cop outs.
>>
>> Work out the travel time for a target 10 km away and tell me how far
>> the plane moved and how egregious this "error" is.
>>
> Why should I bother? Even if the result is a fraction of a millimeter
>it proves my point:
It does?
> that the motion of the radar source changes the
>point of interaction with the returning signal.
Is that your point? I thought your point was that the velocity of
light is dependent on the source velocity. How can you prove a "point"
which is never the same from one second to the next in an argument?
At times your point sometimes seems to be that the Doppler calculation
proves something about the range calculation, or that the range
calculation proves something about the Doppler calculation.
The point of THIS discussion was "is velocity of the aircraft used to
calculate range?". It isn't. Sorry, Jack. That's a fact.
Does the range change between pulses? Sure.
Stick to a single question sometime and we'll try again.
- Randy
Jim Greenfield
Horny, the name is Jim, not Jack, and if you care to rescan the
thread, you will find that it is you who derailed the original
discussion.
I maintain that if EM particle emmission is independent of source
velocity, then a radar would not have to know (or have factored in )
its velocity relative to the ground it stands on. As this is so, I
have yet to be given a reason why that police car cannot use the same
radar, as you claim will work, moving or otherwise.
Jim G
Randy Poe
> Horny,
Horny? If that's an insult, it's too obscure for me.
> the name is Jim, not Jack, and if you care to rescan the
> thread, you will find that it is you who derailed the original
> discussion.
Be that as it may, let's start a discussion about the same
point. We'll start with what you say below.
> I maintain that if EM particle emmission is independent of source
> velocity, then a radar would not have to know (or have factored in )
> its velocity relative to the ground it stands on.
OK, that's your assertion. I disagree. Let's discuss it.
Why do you think so? Let's work it out.
1. Police car is moving at velocity v relative to road.
2. Target car is moving at velocity u relative to road,
or speed (u-v) relative to police car. Police car
intends to add v to whatever measurement he gets
to determine u. (Note, these are signed numbers.
if u is -60, u-v = -120, the target will appear to
be approaching at 120 mph).
3. Target car is initially at range R.
4. Police car sends out a pulse at time 0. It travels at
speed c in the police car's frame, according to relativity.
Of course, the target car is moving while the pulse is
traveling. So the time the pulse travels is something
different from R/c, a little less or a little more depending
on how fast and which direction the car is going.
5. Pulse bounces back Doppler shifted. Police measures a
doppler shift of D = -2*f*vrel/c, where f = transmit
frequency, c = speed of light, and vrel = relative
velocity of target. From this, police radar calculates
vrel = -D*c/(2*f).
6. Police adds vrel to v to obtain u.
Now I claim that however you were told the relative velocity,
you are going to have to do step 6 to obtain u relative to
the road.
You seem to be claiming that's not true. Explain how
you would get u from vrel and why, if particle velocity
is independent of source velocity, the final calculation
of u doesn't involve v.
- Randy