The Big Question that SRians Cannot Answer.
HenriWilson
but adjacent sources travel though LYs of space together and arrive at a common
observer simultaneously.
--->v A_______________->c___________O
-->2v B
Paul Anderson refuses to even acknowledege this question. I think it is too
hard for him.
Henri Wilson.
Cesar Sirvent
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> escribió en el mensaje
news:usm220l6c921so5tm...@4ax.com...
> How and why do light pulses emitted simultaneously by two differently
moving
> but adjacent sources travel though LYs of space together and arrive at a
common
> observer simultaneously.
>
> --->v A_______________->c___________O
> -->2v B
>
> Paul Anderson refuses to even acknowledege this question. I think it is
too
> hard for him.
Because they travel at speed c for observer O. Period and end of discussion.
> Henri Wilson.
>
> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
David Robbins
"Cesar Sirvent" <8UMU...@SPAxMterrMAPSa.esSPAxM> wrote in message
news:wHdUb.3145648$uj6.8...@telenews.teleline.es...
>
> "HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> escribió en el mensaje
> news:usm220l6c921so5tm...@4ax.com...
> > How and why do light pulses emitted simultaneously by two differently
> moving
> > but adjacent sources travel though LYs of space together and arrive at a
> common
> > observer simultaneously.
> >
> > --->v A_______________->c___________O
> > -->2v B
> >
> > Paul Anderson refuses to even acknowledege this question. I think it is
> too
> > hard for him.
>
> Because they travel at speed c for observer O. Period and end of
discussion.
>
even more general... they travel at c for all observers in all inertial
frames.
kenseto
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
news:usm220l6c921so5tm...@4ax.com...
> How and why do light pulses emitted simultaneously by two differently
moving
> but adjacent sources travel though LYs of space together and arrive at a
common
> observer simultaneously.
>
> --->v A_______________->c___________O
> -->2v B
Because the light from the two sources are being transmitted by a statioary
ether.
Ken Seto
Androcles
"Cesar Sirvent" <8UMU...@SPAxMterrMAPSa.esSPAxM> wrote in message
news:wHdUb.3145648$uj6.8...@telenews.teleline.es...
>
> news:usm220l6c921so5tm...@4ax.com...
> > How and why do light pulses emitted simultaneously by two differently
> moving
> > but adjacent sources travel though LYs of space together and arrive at a
> common
> > observer simultaneously.
> >
> > --->v A_______________->c___________O
> > -->2v B
> >
> > Paul Anderson refuses to even acknowledege this question. I think it is
> too
> > hard for him.
>
> Because they travel at speed c for observer O. Period and end of
discussion.
Must be aether, I guess...
ROFL!
Androcles
Androcles
"David Robbins" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:TfOdnUh7EY_...@crocker.com...
It seemeth impossible for it to be, for if I walk away from a candle set by
the wall and you walk toward the same candle, we then have some motion
between us. If we then divide that motion equally between us, and impart it
to the candle such that it appeareth to be at rest upon the floor upon which
we walk, how then doth the light divide it's motion between us, that we may
both observe it to be the same?
And if I place another candle on the other side of us beside the opposing
wall, such that it is at rest with respect to the first candle, how then
shall I determine the light I approach and the light I recede from, that
they be of equal motion to me?
And yet one more candle, be it placed between us in the room, at centre,
that we may both recede from it and still determine that the motion of light
from all candles be the same?
I am but a simple man, and sorely perplexed by these deliberations, for it
is truly astounding that these assertions be true. Explain this wondrous
concept any sensible way you can, but gently, for it shall surely confound
me and cause my head to ache.
Androcles
Robert J. Kolker
HenriWilson wrote:
> How and why do light pulses emitted simultaneously by two differently moving
> but adjacent sources travel though LYs of space together and arrive at a common
> observer simultaneously.
Simulteneous in what reference frame? Simulteneity is not absolute.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
kenseto wrote:
> Because the light from the two sources are being transmitted by a statioary
> ether.
What aether? Where aether? When detected and measured aether? Why
doesn't aether slow down planets and cause them to spiral into their
suns? Why doesn't moving through the aether generate heat? Why is
interaction with aether immune from the third law of motion?
Bob Kolker
Androcles
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:WGfUb.223503$xy6.1141519@attbi_s02...
Yes it is, use an Androclean clock.
The Androclean clock differs from an ordinary clock in that the oscillator
(be it pendulum, balance wheel, quartz crystal or any other form of regular
harmonic oscillator), is remote from the counter, be that a gear train
driving a hand on a clock face or a set of transistors counting and driving
a digital display.
The 'tick' of the oscillator is transmitted by radio or light signals to
the counter, such as may be found in commonly found cordless or wireless
devices such has cell phones, computer mice, keyboards and the like.
The oscillator may theoretically be placed at any distance from counter, the
only limitation being of a practical nature. There must be no intervening
object to interrupt the signal.
In agreement with experience, the counter may be set to any value without
affecting the oscillator. By this is meant that the swing of the pendulum is
not halted by manually moving the hands of the clock to synchronise the time
to some other standard, and that upon release the hand continues to turn.
For the purpose of being a 'stopwatch', commonly used to record short
durations of time, it is possible to disconnect the signal from the
oscillator, thereby causing the count to cease.
An example.
Suppose there is an oscillator at the finish line of a drag racing strip and
a counter at the start line.
At the instant the green light signifies the start of the race, the counter
is reset.
As the vehicles proceed to the finish line, the count continues from zero,
regularly incrementing. Upon reaching the finish line, the signal to the
counter is halted.
There is a short delay as pulses still in transit to the counter are
collected, and the resultant count is a record of the time the vehicle took
to reach the finish line plus the time for the last pulse to return to the
counter.
To eliminate this small discrepancy and calibrate the system, the vehicle is
replaced by a light signal that 'races' in its place. Thus the count divided
by two measures the
speed of light, to the accuracy desired by the rate of the oscillator and
the distance chosen.
Once this calibration has been carried out (i.e . the speed of light
relative to the counter is known) any and all further definitions of
simultaneity are moot.
One simply places an Androclean oscillator at the positions desired, the
Androclean counters to be adjacent, and measure when events at the remote
locations occur.
By subtracting the calibration offsets from each counter, the counts will be
identical for simultaneous events.
Androcles
Bill Hobba
> How and why do light pulses emitted simultaneously by two differently
moving
> but adjacent sources travel though LYs of space together and arrive at a
common
> observer simultaneously.
>
> --->v A_______________->c___________O
> -->2v B
>
> Paul Anderson refuses to even acknowledege this question. I think it is
too
> hard for him.
Quite simple - because when you write down the wave equation of EM
radiation, as you will find in all decent books on EM, it is seen to contain
no terms that depend on the velocity of the source.
Thanks
Bill
Minor Crank
How can Henri be so dense?
Minor Crank
Minor Crank
news:IqfUb.2403$%i5....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
> It seemeth impossible for it to be,
The world doesn't obey your intuitive sense of how things ought to work.
Learn to live with it.
Minor Crank
Cesar Sirvent
"David Robbins" <no...@nowhere.com> escribió en el mensaje
news:TfOdnUh7EY_...@crocker.com...
I deliberately dropped this true assertion cause it was not necessary for
the answer of the question.
Now, when those anti-rels make the obvious question of how A and B also
measure c for the speed of those lightrays:
" cause there are some nice physical effects called time dilation and length
contraction"
Now for the 3rd obvious question, saying that this last assertion is
incompatible with 1-way speed of light measurement:
" you forgot about how you would synchro your clocks".
Of course this does not apply to the amazing technicolor Androclean clocks.
End of discussion. Disingage.
Bilge
>
>How can Henri be so dense?
Maybe he's a clump of strange matter. That would explain a lot.
Bernardz
I don't doubt what you say but is there any experimental evidence to
support this statement!
--
In a perfect world, would people weed the garden?
Observations of Bernard - No 41
Ed Ehrlich
Your web site has a line "Click here for an alternative explanation of
the Michelson-Morley Experiment", so you clearly know the answer to
the above question. The Michaelson-Morely Experiment demonstrated
that light travels through a vacum at a constant speed no matter what
the speed of the light's source. The constant speed of light is an
observed fact. I don't understand why you're wasting your time on
"alternative theorys" which are not nearly as interesting as the real
thing.
kenseto
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
news:usm220l6c921so5tm...@4ax.com...
moving
> but adjacent sources travel though LYs of space together and arrive at a
common
> observer simultaneously.
>
> --->v A_______________->c___________O
> -->2v B
O will observe more waves from source B (Doppler shift). So in that sense
they do not arrive at O simultaneously.
Ken Seto
Androcles
"Minor Crank" <blue_whal...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:8BjUb.227386$na.364731@attbi_s04...
This is rather similar to a chess game in which my opponent, not liking my
move, decides to upset the board.
Casting all the pieces on the floor and storming off in a rage, yelling
"You didn't win!", he believes he has a victory; but of course I did win by
his resignation.
There is of course nothing that is intuitive in the below, it is a
straight-forward
question, for which my defeated opponent has no answer.
Proof by assertion is only recognised by morons and imbeciles.
I shall replace the pieces on the board and make my opening move once again,
inviting all others to respond by knocking the board over. It is quite an
easy way to win.
Androcles
"Cesar Sirvent" <8UMU...@SPAxMterrMAPSa.esSPAxM> wrote in message
>
> Now, when those anti-rels make the obvious question of how A and B also
> measure c for the speed of those lightrays:
(waffle)
> " cause there are some nice physical effects called time dilation and
length
> contraction"
(waffle)
> Now for the 3rd obvious question, saying that this last assertion is
> incompatible with 1-way speed of light measurement:
(waffle)
> " you forgot about how you would synchro your clocks".
(waffle)
> Of course this does not apply to the amazing technicolor Androclean
clocks.
(waffle)
> End of discussion. Disingage.
Proof by assertion!
Androcles
>
Androcles
"Bill Hobba" <bho...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:4021b...@news.iprimus.com.au...
Proof by reference to authority.
Androcles
Androcles
> The Big Question that SRians Cannot Answer:
>
> How can Henri be so dense?
>
> Minor Crank
Androcles
Androcles
"Ed Ehrlich" <eehr...@shani.net> wrote in message
news:48d8aaa2.04020...@posting.google.com...
It would seem to me that somebody that cannot even copy and paste
"Michelson-Morley", but writes "Michaelson-Morely" instead is
either unable to spell correctly, or is referring to an unheard of
Michaelson and Morely.
If he is unable to spell correctly, then it is quite probable that he is
unable to understand that Michelson-Morley show the velocity of light is
constant with respect to the source.
If, on the other hand, there is some Michaelson-Morely Experiment we haven't
heard of, then perhaps he'd be so kind as to give us a reference.
Androcles
Androcles
"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:1024ktc...@corp.supernews.com...
Androcles
EjP
> How and why do light pulses emitted simultaneously by two differently moving
> but adjacent sources travel though LYs of space together and arrive at a common
> observer simultaneously.
>
> --->v A_______________->c___________O
> -->2v B
>
Two words: Maxwell's Equations.
You might consider learning them sometime.
> Paul Anderson refuses to even acknowledege this question. I think it is too
> hard for him.
>
Correction: Paul Anderson refuses to even acknowledge *you*. I think
*you* are too *stupid* for him.
-E
> Henri Wilson.
>
> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Dirk Van de moortel
"Androcles" <jp006...@antispamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:66tUb.10258$%i5....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "Minor Crank" <blue_whal...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:8BjUb.227386$na.364731@attbi_s04...
> > "Androcles" <jp006...@antispamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:IqfUb.2403$%i5....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
> >
> > > It seemeth impossible for it to be,
> >
> > The world doesn't obey your intuitive sense of how things ought to work.
> >
> > Learn to live with it.
> >
> > Minor Crank
>
> This is rather similar to a chess game in which my opponent, not liking my
... farts, stops playing and goes away in disgust?
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"Androcles" <jp006...@antispamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:X9tUb.10280$%i5....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
Proof by reference to inferiority:
http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Fundamental_rev_2.1.htm
Dirk Vdm
kenseto
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in message
>
>
> kenseto wrote:
>
> > Because the light from the two sources are being transmitted by a
statioary
> > ether.
>
> What aether? Where aether? When detected and measured aether?
What field? Where field? When detected and measured field?
>Why
> doesn't aether slow down planets and cause them to spiral into their
> suns?
Because the ether and the particle are repulsive to each other and thus
a particle maintains its motion in the ether.
>Why doesn't moving through the aether generate heat? Why is
> interaction with aether immune from the third law of motion?
The only interaction between a particle and the ether is that they
are repulsive to each other. The third law of motion is not affected.
Ken Seto
Dirk Van de moortel
"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message news:10254gt...@corp.supernews.com...
Setologic.
Ether: "Particle, go away!"
Particle goes away.
Ether: "Particle, I told you to go away!"
Particle goes away.
Ether: "Particle, AWAY, I told you!"
Particle goes away.
etc...
Newsgroup: "Seto, go away!"
Dirk Vdm
Bill Hobba
> I don't doubt what you say but is there any experimental evidence to
> support this statement!
Exactly what do you mean by experimental evidence? Have Maxwell's equations
been verified experimentally - yes - and to a very high degree of accuracy
in the classical domain.. Thus you can say we have experimental support for
conclusions drawn from them. Or do you mean direct experimental evidence of
one way light speed - Well we do have measurements taken from stars etc but
OWLS measurement is a rather tricky thing due to clock syncing issues so
doubt can and probably has been cast on such measurements.
But that was not the question that was asked - the question was 'How and
why do light pulses emitted simultaneously by two differently moving but
adjacent sources travel though LYs of space together and arrive at a common
observer simultaneously.' - that is the question I answer - not what direct
experimental evidence we have for this occurring.
Also understand that SR does not depend on the above to be true - it is
possible as I have posted many times to develop SR without any mention light
at all - an invariant speed arises naturally from the POR. Many experiments
not having anything to do with light can be used to fix that speed - eg
E=MC2, De Brogle Waves and the Lorentz Force law.
Not every single statement made in science is backed by direct experimental
evidence - scientists can and do draw conclusions from theories generally
accepted as true.
Thanks
Bill
Bill Hobba
> > The Big Question that SRians Cannot Answer:
> >
> >How can Henri be so dense?
Bilge replied:
> Maybe he's a clump of strange matter. That would explain a lot.
Physics is in a worse stat than I thought - I did nor realize strange matter
was that strange.
Thanks
Bill
pholroyd
> Also understand that SR does not depend on the above to be true -
> it is possible as I have posted many times to develop SR without
> any mention light at all - an invariant speed arises naturally from
> the POR. Many experiments not having anything to do with light can
> be used to fix that speed - eg E=MC2, De Brogle Waves and the
> Lorentz Force law.
>
i not undrstand. how get sr without mention light at all? wheeler say
light sppeed only natural constant have units for convert time to
length. this must be in sr.
@@@ph@@@
Androcles
Its pretty sick when you snip the question that you cannot answer.
Androcles.
Perfectly Innocent
> but adjacent sources travel though LYs of space together and arrive at a common
> observer simultaneously.
>
> -->2v B
Answer: Because the velocity of light is independent of the velocity of its source.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewforum.php?f=14
Eugene Shubert
http://www.everythingimportant.org
Michael Varney
<SNIP>
> I am but a simple man
You mean simpleton.
HenriWilson
wrote:
>He...@the.edge(HenriWilson) wrote in message news:<usm220l6c921so5tm...@4ax.com>...
>> How and why do light pulses emitted simultaneously by two differently moving
>> but adjacent sources travel though LYs of space together and arrive at a common
>> observer simultaneously.
>>
>> --->v A_______________->c___________O
>> -->2v B
>
>Answer: Because the velocity of light is independent of the velocity of its source.
Not very good Eugene! You get 0/10.... for not reading the question properly.
You missed the 'how and why'.
_____
I will now complicate the question by adding a second observer who is moving
relative to O:
>> --->v A_______________->c___________O
>> -->2v B v1<--O'
Let observer O' be adjacent to O just as the two light pulses from A and B
arrive at observer O.
No doubt this kind of diagram was pretty common 100 years ago as people tried
to make sense of the MMX result. There was no aether after all !!
Then one particularly devious fellow hit on a bright idea. He wondered whether
it was possible to concoct a mathematical method of always making the light
travel time between the two points appear to be the same irrespective of
whether it was or was not....and he succeeded.
With the aid of an unabiguous 'velocity addition equation' and a few LTs, he
cleverly managed to define a spatial geometry that simulated an 'aetherlike
universe' without an aether. Even clocks and rods had to contract, as in the
old aether.
The fact that the concept had no connection with reality was not enough to
deter the hungry opportunists who jumped on the relativity bandwaggon in order
to appear super-intelligent. They soon discovered they could win any argument
by simply introducing impressive but meaningless expressions like 'worldlines',
4D spacetime, light cones and 'RoS'
But not to worry! Back there in 1905, there was no way anyone could refute the
theory's claims. It appeared quite impossible to measure the one-way speed of
light.
It can now be done.
>
>http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewforum.php?f=14
>
>Eugene Shubert
>http://www.everythingimportant.org
Henri Wilson.
Robert J. Kolker
HenriWilson wrote:
>
> It can now be done.
Produce a vetted, reproduced measurement of the one-way speed of light
that does not involve light synchronized clocks. I am not talking about
a proposed measurement or a hypothetical measurement but a real
measurement which has been done and done again by parties with no vested
interest in the outcome other than knowing what is what.
Please produce a citation to reputable journal which has been refereed
and reviewed.
Bob Kolker
Paul B. Andersen
"Androcles" <jp006...@antispamblueyonder.co.uk> skrev i melding
news:66tUb.10258$%i5....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
Experimental evidence prove you wrong.
According to the rules of physics, you have lost.
Now, pick the pieces of your game from the floor and see if
you can find someone willing to play according to your rules.
Nature won't.
Paul
Bilge
>"Bill Hobba" <bho...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>news:4022f...@news.iprimus.com.au...
>> Minor Crank:
>> > > The Big Question that SRians Cannot Answer:
>> > >
>> > >How can Henri be so dense?
>>
>> Bilge replied:
>> > Maybe he's a clump of strange matter. That would explain a lot.
>>
>> Physics is in a worse stat than I thought - I did nor realize strange
>> matter was that strange.
>Its pretty sick when you snip the question that you cannot answer.
>Androcles.
On the other hand, when the question has been answered a zillion times
for the person asking it and he either trolling or doesn't get it because
he's too lazy to read the responses, the most appropriate answer is one
that doesn't tax his attention span or comprehension. Both you and henri
are prime examples of those who merit such answers.
Bilge
I thought that was what he meant and thought he actually got
something right for once. Oh well...
Androcles
"Perfectly Innocent" <perfectl...@as-if.com> wrote in message
news:c45b45b3.0402...@posting.google.com...
a fake ID, but then I thought, Nah, why bother, it's just another spam scam,
why put even more burden on the internet? It can't possibly important if it
hides behind a register of users.
Androcles
HenriWilson
Listen you poor brainwashed senile old moron, it is POSSIBLE to construct a
mathematical model of space and time such that Einstein's second postulate is
always true. That doesn't mean the model has any connection with reality.
I can legitimately write:
A=B
B=C
A=2C.
So what? Will you now worship me for my great discovery?
Henri Wilson.
HenriWilson
Can you not read? Geez!
I didn't say it HAS been done.
I said it CAN be done.
I think you know as well as I do the reason why nobody is allowed to measure
OWLS.
>
>Bob Kolker
>
Henri Wilson.
Androcles
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:reTUb.187871$5V2.975449@attbi_s53...
Produce a vetted, reproduced measurement of an experiment to confirm light
is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
independent of the state of motion of the emitting body, in any way you can.
I am not talking about a proposed measurement or a hypothetical measurement
but a real measurement which has been done and done again by parties with
no vested interest in the outcome other than knowing what is what.
Assertion carries no weight, not even the tin god Einstein's assertion.
Androcles
Androcles
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message
news:c011ga$5fm$1...@dolly.uninett.no...
When you can name the experiment as I have previously asked you to do,
you statement remains nought but assertion.
> According to the rules of physics, you have lost.
According to the rules of logic, assertion caries no weight.
>
> Now, pick the pieces of your game from the floor and see if
> you can find someone willing to play according to your rules.
> Nature won't.
Nature already does.
The probability of you correlating some other cause to the rather beautiful
curve of V1493 Aql, found at
http://www.britastro.org/vss/
and matched at
http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/actual_data.htm
other than the simple concept of the Galilean PoR applied to light, is
approximately one divided by the number of atoms the star contains.
Nature is not interested in Einstein's assertion, and I am not interested in
yours.
Your move.
Androcles
> Paul
>
>
mich
I personally agree with Ken, for he is not speaking of a "relavistic" shift
but a doppler shift explained by Newtonian physics.
Therefore, leaving out relativity, how does one explain the two different
shifts? If it's by a physical change in the wavelength (again, not a
relativistic one), then by an experiment , such as the M&M experiment, A and
B ought to be able to observe
this change of shift within each their own frames by sending two light beams
in different directions and observing it's frequency.
If, on the other hand, the doppler shift is caused by a change in light
velocity, then observer O will receive observer B's light
rays before A's.
What other explanation is there?
Andre
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
news:12a920hgsucirfq3r...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 02:06:33 -0000, dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net
> (Bilge) wrote:
...
> > On the other hand, when the question has been answered a zillion times
> >for the person asking it and he either trolling or doesn't get it
because
> >he's too lazy to read the responses, the most appropriate answer is one
> >that doesn't tax his attention span or comprehension. Both you and henri
> >are prime examples of those who merit such answers.
> >
>
> Listen you poor brainwashed senile old moron, it is POSSIBLE to construct
a
> mathematical model of space and time such that Einstein's second
postulate is
> always true. That doesn't mean the model has any connection with reality.
>
> I can legitimately write:
> A=B
> B=C
> A=2C.
>
> So what? Will you now worship me for my great discovery?
I bet Dirk catches this one.
Your statement is only true if A=B=C=0. Sorry.
David A. Smith
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
news:1ba920d7nai0idv3d...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 20:59:03 GMT, "Robert J. Kolker"
> <bobk...@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote:
...
> >Please produce a citation to reputable journal which has been refereed
> >and reviewed.
>
> Can you not read? Geez!
>
> I didn't say it HAS been done.
>
> I said it CAN be done.
>
> I think you know as well as I do the reason why nobody is allowed to
measure
> OWLS.
Because if a distance is used, TWLS is established. No one is "allowed" to
do to it because distance and time are both required to establish a
velocity. So "differentiation" is out. "Integration" seems to be the only
recourse, and there is that pesky constant.
David A. Smith
Androcles
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:n...@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:uF7Vb.23675$tP1.10189@fed1read07...
c = (c+v)/(1+v/c) = (c+w)/(1+w/c), where w = -v is only true if v = 0.
I hope Dirk catches that one.
Androcles
Androcles
in London, but I think we can live with it. It would be quite difficult if
six months in New York lasted for one year in London, though. Why, that
would mean that Americans had seen the new Moon less often than the British.
Just imagine if someone went on a long journey, and still keeping an eye on
the moon all the way, came back younger than her twin. Anyone thinking that
could happen would have to be a little behind the times, wouldn't they?
Androcles
Androcles
"mich" <mi...@efni.com> wrote in message
news:1029u94...@corp.supernews.com...
Galilean relativity cannot be left out, but I assume you are referring to
Einsteinian relativity.
For sound,
f' = f(m(p)+v.cos(phi))/(m(p)+u.cos(theta)))
Where v is the velocity of the observer, phi is the angle the observer is
moving relative to the sound source in air, u is the speed of the sound
source, theta is the angle sound source is moving at, m(p) is the speed of
sound at pressure p, f is the emitted frequency and f' is the observed
frequency.
That's close enough without taking the pressure gradient into account, we'll
assume both the aircraft are flying straight and level.
You can reduce this to the simple model if you make the angle 0 and pressure
constant, so that cos(0) = 1 and m = Mach One at sea level, about 760 mph.
f' = f. (M+v)/(M+u), v and u the velocity relative to the air.
So if two planes (or boat, trains or automobiles) are travelling side by
side at let's say 76 mph for convenience, and the note played on the trumpet
is middle 'A', (or is it 'C', I forget) then
f' = 440* (760+76)/(760+76) = 440, no shift as expected.
The next case to consider is the trumpet on the train. These are the actual
experiments Doppler performed using musicians playing trumpets on trains.
http://www.surveyor.in-berlin.de/himmel/astro/Doppler-e.html
Nobody had really noticed any shift before trains, nothing moved fast
enough, although some non-scientist may have ridden a horse at full gallop
past the church bell.
f' = f.(M+v)/(M+0) is the case where Doppler is riding a train past the
station, and a trumpeter is sounding the note, and u = 0 here. he has
another musician with a trained ear who can tell him the exact pitch of the
note, A, B, B-flat, whatever, which the professor of physics can convert to
frequency (Hertz).
I doubt the train was moving at 76 mph in the 1830-40s, but anyway...
f' = 440.(760+76)/760 = 484Hz as the train approached the station, and
f' = 440.(760-76)/760 = 396Hz as it leaves. eeeEEEE--OOOooww.... we've all
heard it.
Then Doppler does it the other way around. He puts the trumpeter on the
train and he stands on the platform, and repeats the experiment (maybe he
did this one first, I don't know).
This time,
f' = 440* 760/(760-76) = 489, a little higher than the 484Hz we found
before, but close. As the train is leaving (take care of signs),
f' = 440* 760/(760+76) = 400, again a little higher than 396 if my
arithmetic is right.
Notice what happens if a plane 'breaks the sound barrier'. (There is no
barrier to be broken, of course, but it was once thought there was, and some
rather odd people still think there is a light barrier. I expect you'll be
hearing from them if you hang around sci.physics.relativity).
Anyway, we now have v = M, so
f' = f.(M+M)/M = 2f, the frequency doubles as you approach the sound, and
f' = f.(M-M)/M = 0, you can't hear it as you go away. Not surprising,
really, you are moving at the same speed as the sound, it can't catch you.
The other way around is more familiar, because planes can go fast enough.
f' =f.M(M-M) = .. oh oh..a divide-by-zero.
All the sound energy arrives at the same instant as the plane. BOOM!...
and it is annoying, so Concorde was never allowed to fly over land.
That explains the two different shifts using Newtonian Mechanics, as Doppler
already did in the 1800's.
> If it's by a physical change in the wavelength (again, not a
> relativistic one), then by an experiment , such as the M&M experiment, A
and
> B ought to be able to observe
> this change of shift within each their own frames by sending two light
beams
> in different directions and observing it's frequency.
Sure, and the speed of light is source dependent, only the relative velocity
matters, there is no air (or any imagined aether) and the equation to use
is f' =
f. (c+v)/c,
and not
f' = f.c/(c-v)
> If, on the other hand, the doppler shift is caused by a change in light
> velocity, then observer O will receive observer B's light
> rays before A's.
And that is what happens.
A star in elliptical orbit will move toward you and away from you. As it
does so, it will emit later faster light than earlier light emitted more
slowly, yet both will be c relative to the star. This means that the faster
light will pass the slower light on its way here, if the distance is great
enough.
The result of that is V 1493 Aql,
found at
http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/actual_data.htm
> What other explanation is there?
> Andre
Exactly.
There is no other way that beautiful curve can be sensibly explained, and
the data is real.
Androcles
Robert J. Kolker
HenriWilson wrote:
> Can you not read? Geez!
>
> I didn't say it HAS been done.
Proof by assertion blowing out your arse. Write us when it is a fait
accompli. Until then, you are blowing hot air.
Bob Kolker
Androcles
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:cA8Vb.192549$Rc4.1518965@attbi_s54...
Fried Kolker that claims he can measure the speed of an electron in a
1 megavolt electric field.
Androcles
Perfectly Innocent
> Perfectly Innocent wrote:
> > Answer: Because the velocity of light is independent of the velocity of its source.
>
> Not very good Eugene! You get 0/10.... for not reading the question properly.
> You missed the 'how and why'.
Because that is the way reality is. Surely you understand that.
Why is reality the way it is? Because God made it that way!
http://www.everythingimportant.org
Eugene Shubert
Perfectly Innocent
> "Perfectly Innocent" wrote in message
> news:c45b45b3.0402...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > Answer: Because the velocity of light is independent of the velocity of
> its source.
> >
> > http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewforum.php?f=14
> >
> > Eugene Shubert
> > http://www.everythingimportant.org
> Not much use if you have to sign in to read it.
You're mistaken. You don't have to sign in to read.
mich
"Androcles" <jp006...@antispamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Ly8Vb.4952$P32...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "mich" <mi...@efni.com> wrote in message
> news:1029u94...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
Again, very good explanation, but my question was a bit different. Here,
you are using the velocity of sound in terms of c+v and c-v,relative to the
observer, something that relativity denies. I do agree with what you have
written but, this would suggest the velocity of light would be source
dependant; and upon reading your post, you seem to agree, meaning that you
disagree with the theory of relativity.
By one of your statement "A star in elliptical orbit will move toward
you and away from you. As it
does so, it will emit later faster light than earlier light emitted more
slowly, yet both will be c relative to the star. This means that the faster
light will pass the slower light on its way here, if the distance is great
enough."
In this, you seem to accept the particle theory of light, which I also
share. I will read through the link that you have attached; thank you. As a
thought, do you think it possible that a planetary probe mission, such as
voyager could give us an image of the position of a moon relative to a
planet at a moment in time, such as Jupiter, the farther the planet the
better,and compare it to the earth's observation of the same moon relative
to the planet, observing whether there would a be a difference of position
due to a difference of light speed?
Andre
HenriWilson
I hope dinky van spittal is aware that his fumble collection will one day
provide a priceless historical record of the steps that led to the downfall of
Einsteinian relativity.
Henri Wilson.
HenriWilson
D:cox T:n...@nospam.com> wrote:
You haven't improved Smithy. You will never make a scientist.
Henri Wilson.
Androcles
"Perfectly Innocent" <perfectl...@as-if.com> wrote in message
news:c45b45b3.0402...@posting.google.com...
Anyone can pass the buck to their gods.
Perhaps I should teach mathematics in your church, and leave the more
difficult
parts for you goddess to solve.
Who made gods anyway?
Androcles
Androcles
the probe, then the radio signal carrying that image back to us will still
arrive at the same time as the direct light of the moon seen through a
telescope. So the radioed 'snapshot' can't get here any sooner than the live
image.
Bilge
>"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in message
>news:reTUb.187871$5V2.975449@attbi_s53...
>>
>>
>> Please produce a citation to reputable journal which has been refereed
>> and reviewed.
>>
>> Bob Kolker
>
>Produce a vetted, reproduced measurement of an experiment to confirm light
>is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
>independent of the state of motion of the emitting body, in any way you can.
Produce a vetted, reproduced measurement of an experiment to confirm light
is not always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
independent of the state of motion of the emitting body, in any way you can.
Produce a vetted, reproduced measurement of an experiment to confirm
any object released from the top of a building will always fall down
regardless of the building.
Produce a vetted, reproduced measurement of an experiment to confirm
you aren't the resident of a mental istitution and wouldn't be confined
to one by any society in the universe.
>I am not talking about a proposed measurement or a hypothetical measurement
>but a real measurement which has been done and done again by parties with
>no vested interest in the outcome other than knowing what is what.
I am not talking about a proposed measurement or a hypothetical measurement
but a real measurement which has been done and done again by parties with
no vested interest in the outcome other than knowing what is what.
>Assertion carries no weight, not even the tin god Einstein's assertion.
Assertion carries no weight, not even the tin god androsleaze' assertion.
Tom Roberts
> In article <4021b...@news.iprimus.com.au>, bho...@yahoo.com.au says...
>>Quite simple - because when you write down the wave equation of EM
>>radiation, as you will find in all decent books on EM, it is seen to contain
>>no terms that depend on the velocity of the source.
> I don't doubt what you say but is there any experimental evidence to
> support this statement!
Yes. Look in the FAQ for both astronomical and laboratory verifications
that the speed of light is independent of the velocity of the source.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Androcles
"Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:LnfVb.2024$PY....@newssvr26.news.prodigy.com...
Look at astronomical verification
http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/actual_data.htm
and nonsensical mathematics from Einstein
http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Fundamental_rev_2.1.htm
plus the very simplicity of MMX
"Evidence Against Emission Theories" J. G. Fox, Amer. J. Phys. 33, 1 (1965).
plus the Newtonian derivation of E= mc^2
"Evidence Against Emission Theories" J. G. Fox, Amer. J. Phys. 33, 1 (1965).
that the speed of light is very much dependent of the velocity of the
source outside of a medium.
Androcles
Harold Ensle
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in message
>
>
> kenseto wrote:
>
> > Because the light from the two sources are being transmitted by a
statioary
> > ether.
Right you are.
> What aether? Where aether?
The aether that allows the existence of an electric and magnetic field.
>When detected and measured aether?
Silvertooth & Witney 1992
>Why
> doesn't aether slow down planets and cause them to spiral into their
> suns?
>Why doesn't moving through the aether generate heat? Why is
> interaction with aether immune from the third law of motion?
Because each particle of the planet is itself propagating through the
aether at a velocity less than light. Thus it is not hindered anymore
than light is.
FYI
H.Ellis Ensle
mich
>
> "mich" <mi...@efni.com> wrote in message
> news:102afra...@corp.supernews.com...
> > Thank you, Androcles for the elaborate response.
on
> the probe, then the radio signal carrying that image back to us will still
> arrive at the same time as the direct light of the moon seen through a
> telescope. So the radioed 'snapshot' can't get here any sooner than the
live
> image.
>
moons orbiting the planet. While one moon is blue shifted, and the other is
red shifted, it's relative image position ought to change as the distance
increases. if the probe is close enough from the planet, there ought to be a
difference in the relative position between the two moons as seen by the
probe relative to the observation on earth, it seems.
Andre
Perfectly Innocent
> "Perfectly Innocent" wrote in message
> news:c45b45b3.0402...@posting.google.com...
> > He...@the.edge(HenriWilson) wrote in message
> news:<ccu7209h034nna2se...@4ax.com>...
> > > Perfectly Innocent wrote:
>
> > > > Answer: Because the velocity of light is independent of the velocity
> > > > of its source.
> > > Not very good Eugene! You get 0/10.... for not reading the question
> > > properly. You missed the 'how and why'.
> >
> > Because that is the way reality is. Surely you understand that.
> >
> > Why is reality the way it is? Because God made it that way!
> >
> > http://www.everythingimportant.org
> >
> > Eugene Shubert
>
> Anyone can pass the buck to their gods.
And anyone can pretend to understand how existence came into existence.
> Perhaps I should teach mathematics in your church, and leave the more
> difficult
> parts for you goddess to solve.
You probably know less mathematics than anyone in my fellowship.
> Who made gods anyway?
> Androcles
God is eternal. Evidently you have never learned about transfinite arithmetic.
Eugene Shubert
http://www.everythingimportant.org/
Androcles
> "Androcles" <jp006...@antispamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<oBcVb.5954$P32....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>...
> > "Perfectly Innocent" wrote in message
> > news:c45b45b3.0402...@posting.google.com...
> > > He...@the.edge(HenriWilson) wrote in message
> > news:<ccu7209h034nna2se...@4ax.com>...
> > > > Perfectly Innocent wrote:
> >
> > > > > Answer: Because the velocity of light is independent of the
velocity
> > > > > of its source.
>
> > > > Not very good Eugene! You get 0/10.... for not reading the question
> > > > properly. You missed the 'how and why'.
> > >
> > > Because that is the way reality is. Surely you understand that.
> > >
> > > Why is reality the way it is? Because God made it that way!
> > >
> > > http://www.everythingimportant.org
> > >
> > > Eugene Shubert
> >
> > Anyone can pass the buck to their gods.
>
> And anyone can pretend to understand how existence came into existence.
filled with the human emotions of wrath, love, vengeance and masculinity.
> > Perhaps I should teach mathematics in your church, and leave the more
> > difficult
> > parts for you goddess to solve.
>
> You probably know less mathematics than anyone in my fellowship.
Perhaps you'd be so kind as to give a numerical value to that probability,
and explain how you arrived at it? Was it guess, mathematical calculation,
or resentment that I don't accept your god theory, Perfectly Naive? You see,
I have eaten of the fruit of the tree of screwed up postulates:
http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Fundamental_rev_2.1.htm
which asks for no signature to read, I'm not collecting spam information.
>
> > Who made gods anyway?
> > Androcles
>
> God is eternal. Evidently you have never learned about transfinite
arithmetic.
>
> Eugene Shubert
> http://www.everythingimportant.org/
Bright green flying elephants lay eggs since all things are possible when we
consider the infinite. Oh, wait!! Is your god a bright green egg-laying
flying elephant?
Amazing how I can create them as easily as you can create gods, isn't it?
Androcles
Androcles
of January last actually, when Daniel Weston presented the problem. I was
rather cynical, since I objected strongly to his son's so-called educator
that made absurd pronouncements.
Begin:=======================================
"Daniel Weston" <dani...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:13505-400...@storefull-3133.bay.webtv.net...
> Androcles. One of my sons is a nuclear
> engineer and I asked him about light being non-additive. I explained to
> him that the easiest way for me to abandon an idea is to be shown that
> it leads to absurd results. He told me that his science teacher
> explained that the reason that Jupiter's moons appear clearly and
> distinctly in telescopes is because light is a constant speed. The
> instructor said that if light were additive that the moons of Jupiter
> would be indistinct and observed to rotate in a manner contrary to
> Kepler's laws.
>
> Any comments?
Well, my first reaction is to say 'nonsense', but I am not one to make
unsubstantiated assertions; that is just what your son's instructor
is doing, without doing the math.
Jupiter is about 5 AU from the sun and has a period of 12 years,
so it's distance from us varies from 4 AU to 9AU over a 13 month
interval (think of the big hand and little hand on the clock that meet
every 66 minutes,12:00, 01:06, 02:12, 03:18.... 11:54)
Let's choose Ganymede as an example. Rough figures only.
http://www.space-encounters.com/TNP/nineplanets/data.html
Distance from Jupiter 1070 km Period 7.15 days.
Using a circular orbit, 2*PI*1070000 = 6723000 km, in 7.15 days
= 940000 km/day or 10 km / second.
The speed of light from Ganymede approaching the sun (I'm ignoring
inclination)
is therefore 300,010 km/sec and 299,990 km/sec when receding.
it is 300,000km/sec when it is crossing our line of sight.
Ok, so if there is to be any blur, it isn't going to be when the it is
coming directly at us with one image behind the other, or directly away,
or crossing our line of sight.
The best chance of us seeing it is when Ganymede is moving at a 45 degree
angle to us.
At 45, then, the speed of the light it emits will be
300,007.0710678118654752440084436210485 km/sec., which I'll call c+.
Let's consider the worst case for distance to allow the greatest possible
time
(actually, Jupiter will be behind the sun for that, but never mind).
1AU is about 150,000,000 km, so it will take the light 9/c+ =
4499.8939364827630936950971476211 seconds to reach us. (1.25 hours)
ONE SECOND LATER, Ganymede will have moved how far?
10km.
What fraction of a circle is that?
360*10/6723000 = 5.3547523427041499330655957161981e-4 degrees
So now we have 45.000535475234270414993306559572 degrees instead of 45.
Cosine?
0.70710017267293863777323464501342
* 10km/sec +c = 300007.07100172672938637773235 = new c+
Now, being on the other side of the sun, Jupiter will not have moved far in
one
second, agreed? So we can use the same distance, 9AU.
9*150,000,000/c+ =
4499.8939374739934076506505190356
So the difference is
0.000000991230313955553371414 seconds.
So, to recap, worst case, if Ganymede moves in one second, the time
DIFFERENCE for the light to arrive is 0.000001 seconds
This will correspond to a blur of 1/1,000,000 of Ganymede's diameter,
5262000 m, or 5 meters.
ATAN(5/1350000000) = 7.8595033625627325946247886687719e-16 degrees
So your son's science teacher is right.
Ganymede would be spread across the sky in a blur
that was an absolutely enormous
0.0000000000000008 degrees wide.
It must be amazing how we can possibly distinguish any
feature on its surface that is less than 5 meters wide, so I
suppose we need to sent the Galileo spacecraft to have
closer look.
Oh, we did, didn't we?
http://www.space-encounters.com/TNP/nineplanets/ganymede.html
Now we can see features that are less that 5 meters across, can't we?
But maybe I got my figures wrong and we should do the calculation again,
this time with Jupiter at it's closest, and try a different moon?
No thanks, I'll allow 100 times the blur, it's easier.
0.00000000000008 degrees wide, 500m feature width.
Sorry, Daniel, but I cannot help dripping with sarcasm at the
absolute stupidity of a moron that claims the reason that Jupiter's
moons appear clearly and distinctly in telescopes is because light
is a constant speed. As a cook and dishwasher, I'll forgive him.
As a science teacher, he should be lined up and shot. Send him out
flipping burgers or pumping gas.
End:=========================================
So yes, while you are qualitatively correct, there is a difference as a
result of the blue and red shifted moons, it is miniscule quantifiably.
For your probe's view and the telescopes view, and using two moons we can
safely double the estimate I have given for one of them, it cannot be more
than 1 kilometre difference in relative position, and I deliberately used a
larger figure than I needed to, it is probably closer to 10 meters.
We could reverse the situation, use the GPS system as the 'probe' and place
the telescope on Europa, then see if we could detect any error in the height
of a redwood tree between the two systems. That would be some telescope
that could resolve a redwood from the orbit of Jupiter. :-)
Androcles
mich
> So yes, while you are qualitatively correct, there is a difference as a
> result of the blue and red shifted moons, it is miniscule quantifiably.
> For your probe's view and the telescopes view, and using two moons we can
> safely double the estimate I have given for one of them, it cannot be more
> than 1 kilometre difference in relative position, and I deliberately used
a
> larger figure than I needed to, it is probably closer to 10 meters.
> We could reverse the situation, use the GPS system as the 'probe' and
place
> the telescope on Europa, then see if we could detect any error in the
height
> of a redwood tree between the two systems. That would be some telescope
> that could resolve a redwood from the orbit of Jupiter. :-)
> Androcles
Thanks. Due to the enormous speed of light, I did suspect the change would
be too small to observe.
What about an experiment done on the probe such as an oscillating emiter.
Wouldn't the frequency on the probe disagree with the one received on earth
if the velocity of light is c+/- v?
Andre
Androcles
>
> "Androcles" <jp006...@antispamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:NznVb.9992$P32...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
> >
> > "mich" <mi...@efni.com> wrote in message
> > news:102bc9u...@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
> > So yes, while you are qualitatively correct, there is a difference as a
> > result of the blue and red shifted moons, it is miniscule quantifiably.
> > For your probe's view and the telescopes view, and using two moons we
can
> > safely double the estimate I have given for one of them, it cannot be
more
> > than 1 kilometre difference in relative position, and I deliberately
used
> a
> > larger figure than I needed to, it is probably closer to 10 meters.
> > We could reverse the situation, use the GPS system as the 'probe' and
> place
> > the telescope on Europa, then see if we could detect any error in the
> height
> > of a redwood tree between the two systems. That would be some telescope
> > that could resolve a redwood from the orbit of Jupiter. :-)
> > Androcles
>
> Thanks. Due to the enormous speed of light, I did suspect the change would
> be too small to observe.
but you could fit quite a few of them in an ocean liner, and an ocean is
enormous to a ship. The Sun is enormous to the Earth, and it takes years for
light to reach from star to star. I consider the speed of light rather slow.
> What about an experiment done on the probe such as an oscillating emiter.
> Wouldn't the frequency on the probe disagree with the one received on
earth
> if the velocity of light is c+/- v?
> Andre
>
It does. We call that doppler shift.
If you have a counter on Earth to count the remote oscillations, then you
have an Androclean clock, my own invention to overcome Einstein's definition
of simultaneity. By setting two Androclean counters side-by-side
simultaneously to the same count (position of the hands on the dial), and
using a computer to calculate the different rates due to doppler shift, we
can determine exactly when a remote event occured, relative to an event
elsewhere. All time measurements are relative anyway, the Western calendar
doesn't agree with the Hebrew or Chinese calendars, New York time lags
London time by five hours...
Androcles
Perfectly Innocent
> "Perfectly Innocent" wrote in message
> > > Anyone can pass the buck to their gods.
> >
> > And anyone can pretend to understand how existence came into existence.
> >
> And anyone can have an imagination enough to create a god in his own image,
> filled with the human emotions of wrath, love, vengeance and masculinity.
>
I don't have that capacity. My thoughts are fixed on a higher reality.
> > > Perhaps I should teach mathematics in your church, and leave the more
> > > difficult
> > > parts for you goddess to solve.
> >
> > You probably know less mathematics than anyone in my fellowship.
>
> Perhaps you'd be so kind as to give a numerical value to that probability,
From a quick scan of your website, I estimate the certainty of your
mathematical ineptitude as 100%. That makes your pontificating on
relativity a very religious and superstitious ignorance. In contrast,
everyone in my Christian fellowship holds a degree in mathematics or
physics.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=451
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/generalized.htm
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/simultaneity.htm
Eugene Shubert
http://www.everythingimportant.org/
Androcles
Yes, using a postulate to change that same postulate is not inept, is it?
Quick scan, huh?
Estimate, huh?
My own degrees, B.A. (Math) and M.Sc. mean nothing to you, do they?
Did you include yourself in your assertion concerning your fellowship?
I didn't think so.
If you had any mathematical education (beyond simple arithmetic) at all,
you'd be able to see that all you can do is make assertions.
I'm done wasting time with you, Imperfectly Niave.
*plonk*
Androcles
mich
virus,
> but you could fit quite a few of them in an ocean liner, and an ocean is
> enormous to a ship. The Sun is enormous to the Earth, and it takes years
for
> light to reach from star to star. I consider the speed of light rather
slow.
True. I was thinking in terms of enormous relative to the short distance
existing between earth and the probe.
> > What about an experiment done on the probe such as an oscillating
emiter.
> > Wouldn't the frequency on the probe disagree with the one received on
> earth
> > if the velocity of light is c+/- v?
> > Andre
> >
> It does. We call that doppler shift.
Actually, I was thinking the probe being stationary relative to the observer
on earth.
Since the emiter would be oscillating, the electromagnetic waves would have
a redshift when the emiter is moving away from the observer on earth and a
blueshift would appear when the emiter would be moving towards the earth.
The observer on the
probe would also observe the effect, but, if the velocity of light is c+/-
v, then, there would be a difference between
the doppler shift as observed on the probe from the doppler observed on
earth. If the velocity of light is invariant, then both observations would
be the same.....does this make sense?
> If you have a counter on Earth to count the remote oscillations, then you
> have an Androclean clock, my own invention to overcome Einstein's
definition
> of simultaneity. By setting two Androclean counters side-by-side
> simultaneously to the same count (position of the hands on the dial), and
> using a computer to calculate the different rates due to doppler shift, we
> can determine exactly when a remote event occured, relative to an event
> elsewhere. All time measurements are relative anyway, the Western calendar
> doesn't agree with the Hebrew or Chinese calendars, New York time lags
> London time by five hours...
> Androcles
>
...Interesting. When two observers,A and B, separated by a distance of 1
light hour apart , sending each other a light signal of a specific
frequency, then, observer A moving towards B, will observe a blue shift
immediately while observer B will have to wait 1 hour to observe a blueshift
coming from the signal sent by observer A; I suspect the blue shifts will be
different from one
the other. Was there ever an experiment which was made to verify this?
Andre
Androcles
>
> "Androcles" <jp006...@antispamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:zrtVb.13419$P32....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
> >
> > "mich" <mi...@efni.com> wrote in message
> > news:102cid4...@corp.supernews.com...
> > >
> > 'Enormous' is a relative term. An elephant is enormous compared to a
> virus,
> > but you could fit quite a few of them in an ocean liner, and an ocean is
> > enormous to a ship. The Sun is enormous to the Earth, and it takes years
> for
> > light to reach from star to star. I consider the speed of light rather
> slow.
>
> True. I was thinking in terms of enormous relative to the short distance
> existing between earth and the probe.
The speed of light is enormous by human perceptions of time. My first
computer operated at 4MHz, had a 16-bit address bus and an 8-bit data bus.
It was a NASCOM II, built from a kit in 1979 (egads- 25 years ago )
Now I can process 4 bytes at 2.0 GHz, 2000 times faster. If I could increase
the processing speed of my brain by as much, the speed of light would seem a
mere 300,000,000/2000 = 150 kilometers/sec.
>
> > > What about an experiment done on the probe such as an oscillating
> emiter.
> > > Wouldn't the frequency on the probe disagree with the one received on
> > earth
> > > if the velocity of light is c+/- v?
> > > Andre
> > >
> > It does. We call that doppler shift.
>
> Actually, I was thinking the probe being stationary relative to the
observer
> on earth.
> Since the emiter would be oscillating, the electromagnetic waves would
have
> a redshift when the emiter is moving away from the observer on earth and a
> blueshift would appear when the emiter would be moving towards the earth.
> The observer on the
> probe would also observe the effect, but, if the velocity of light is c+/-
> v, then, there would be a difference between
> the doppler shift as observed on the probe from the doppler observed on
> earth. If the velocity of light is invariant, then both observations would
> be the same.....does this make sense?
Sure, if you placed the emitter between the probe and the Earth such that it
was approaching the probe, it would be moving away from the Earth. Naturally
it would exhibit blue shift for the probe and red shift for the Earth. This
is no more strange than you looking in the mirror to see yourself looking in
the opposite direction to the way you are facing :-)
Well, Beagle didn't make it, but there are as we write two rovers on
opposite sides of Mars with orbiters above, they are (roughly) a light hour
from Earth, sending signals with a specific frequency from A (Mars) to B
(Earth) and back,
Mars and the Earth are in constant relative motion, so I would say that the
experiment was going on right now to verify what you say, and has been done
before. :-)
Androcles
Bill Hobba
> > Also understand that SR does not depend on the above to be true -
> > it is possible as I have posted many times to develop SR without
> > any mention light at all - an invariant speed arises naturally from
> > the POR. Many experiments not having anything to do with light can
> > be used to fix that speed - eg E=MC2, De Brogle Waves and the
> > Lorentz Force law.
> >
>
pholroyd wrote:
> i not undrstand. how get sr without mention light at all? wheeler say
> light sppeed only natural constant have units for convert time to
> length. this must be in sr.
>
There are a number of ways - read the first chapter of Rindler -
Introduction to special Relativity for a full discussion. Also I will post
you Tom's excellent paper on SR that presents an even better derivation.
Here is the gist of Rindlers idea. Set s be the maximum speed information
can be sent in an inertial frame. By the POR this speed must be the same in
all inertal frames. Consider such a speed in frame 1 but viewed from frame
2 and call it s2. Since s is the maximum speed information can be sent s2
<= s. Suppose s2 < s then a speed s' > s2 but <= s can be found in frame
2. When viwed from frame 1 causality implies s' > s (think about this - if
you do not understand I will post the exact reasoning) but by assumption s
is the maximum speed hence s2 < s leads to a contradiction thus s2 = s ie
this maximum speed is invariant. Thus we have derived an invariant speed s
(it may be infinity) from the POR alone. Proceed to derive the Lorentz
transformations in the usual way and you get the equations with an
undetermined s. Many experiments can be used to fix that value - the
Lorentz force law, high energy particle experiments checking for E=MC2, de
brogle waves etc none of which have anything directly to do with light.
BTW if you read Rindler be aware his explanation is slightly different in
that it uses particle speed instead of information - the reasoning is
exactly the same - I just prefer speed of information because the result,
there is maximum speed information can be sent, is something you often see
mentioned but not proved (Rindler in his book of course does prove it -
however my argument also proves it as well).
I will post you Toms excellent paper that gives an even better derivation.
Thanks
Bill
Bill Hobba
Had a look at your email address and it looked like a dummy one - so - with
apologies to those that have seen the paper before I decided to post it - I
really should have kept the link - ah well you live and learn.
Again I apologize to others.
Bill
Many criticisms of Special Relativity center on the "assumption" that
the speed of light is constant in all reference frames. The derivation
given here does not make that assumption; the existence of a universal
speed (c) is a natural consequence of the Postulates forming the basis
of the derivation. General symmetry properties of space-time are
sufficient to determine the equations of the Lorentz Transformation
[to within a topological choice - see below]. The bottom line is that
it is IMPOSSIBLE to formulate an alternative to Special Relativity,
while obeying the observed symmetries of space-time and agreeing with
the experimental evidence [see below about the limitations of the
symmetry postulates used in this derivation].
This article will, I hope, show why physicists believe in Special
Relativity (within its applicable domain), and are extremely
sceptical of "alternative descriptions". Historically, it took a long
time for physicists to accept Special Relativity. Even today, the
compelling derivation given here is usually not presented in textbooks;
I don't know why.
I claim no originality for this derivation; I do not know who originally
discovered it; I have re-created it based upon dimly-remembered ideas
from graduate school.
Written by:
Tom Roberts
Lucent Technologies / Bell Laboratories
tjro...@lucent.com
original date: sometime 1989-1990
Colloquially, a Lorentz Transformation is called a "boost".
This derivation will be heavy going, in algebra; I hope it will be
understandable to most people with a good understanding of elementary
algebra, and a smattering of common sense. This is NOT a rigorous
mathematical derivation, but one at the level of rigor common to physicists.
NOTATION:
F(x) F is a function of x
a*b a multiplied by b
A**2 A squared (raised to the 2nd power == A*A)
== "is identical to", or "is the same as"
= mathematical equality (NOT the FORTRAN meaning)
First, four Postulates will be given, with a brief discussion.
Then, the general form of the transformation equations will be derived,
followed by a brief discussion of their implications.
THE MAPPING POSTULATE
When two observers observe the same physical space-time, they assign
individual coordinate systems to THE SAME points of space-time. There is
a relation between the assignments they (separately) make, which is
called a coordinate transformation, usually expressed as a consistent
set of mathematical formulas relating the coordinates of one observer
to the coordinates of the other. The coordinate transformation from one
system to the other MUST be one-to-one and onto the other, BECAUSE THEY
ARE DESCRIBING THE SAME PHYSICAL SPACE-TIME; the transformation must
be invertible (see Relativity Postulate, below).
[Mathematicians worry about a lot of conditions for this, and
for the other Postulates; this is a Physicist's derivation, and
will assume that physical systems satisfy the mathematical
conditions necessary (continuity, etc.).]
THE ISOTROPY/HOMOGENEITY POSTULATE
Space is isotropic, in that there is no "preferred direction" in
space. The transformation must have the same mathematical form
for a boost in any (spatial) direction. Space is also homogeneous,
in that there is no "preferred position" in space. The
transformation must have the same mathematical form for any origin
of coordinates; this applies to time, as well.
THE RELATIVITY POSTULATE
There is no "preferred velocity", or "Preferred coordinate system" -
only relative velocities are observable. If coordinate system S' is
moving with velocity v, as observed in coordinate system S, then S is
moving with velocity -v, as observed in S'.
[This is Einstein's fundamental departure from classical
physics. Today, it seems natural.]
THE GROUP POSTULATE
The collection of all possible Transformations must form a
group under composition by successive application of transformations.
This is the key postulate, and the one that makes a general derivation
of the transformation equations possible; it imposes severe constraints
on the form of the equations. It has four important implications:
1. An identity transformation exists, which maps a coordinate system
to itself.
2. Any transformation has an inverse, which is also a transformation.
3. The result of applying two transformations in succession is itself
a transformation.
4. The application of three transformations in succession follows the
law of associativity [ABC = (AB)C = A(BC)].
[This is a more modern approach to the subject than was common
in Einstein's day; Einstein was instrumental in pointing out
how important symmetries are in physics, which leads naturally
to group theory.]
Those are the Postulates; make sure you understand and believe in them
now, because they are sufficient to derive the general form of the
transformation equations.
[It may be a surprise to some readers that no postulate includes
a statement that light has the same speed in all frames; such
a statement is not required. This is just one example of the
power of group theory.]
Now for the math...
This derivation will be done in "1+1" dimensions, that is, for one space
coordinate and one time coordinate. The derivation would follow similar
lines in "3+1" dimensions, but the extra complexity would exhibit no
additional features.
There are three frames of reference (or coordinate systems) of interest;
they will be called S, S', and S"; their coordinates will be called
x and t, x' and t', and x" and t", respectively. They are constructed
so that their x, x', and x" axes are all collinear, with the origins
of coordinates coincident (i.e. in the exact same place in the real
(i.e. physical) space-time); that is, the coordinates x=0,t=0 and
x'=0,t'=0 and x"=0,t"=0 all refer to the same point (event) in the
real space-time. The Homogeneity Postulate guarantees that no special
significance arises from their coincident origins of coordinates.
All three frames will use the same scales for length and time (these
simplifications are not necessary, but relaxing them would add
unenlightening complexity).
The difference between the three frames is their relative velocities.
We will call the velocity of S' as measured in S, u; S" as measured
in S' is v; S" as measured in S is w. The physical situation ensures
that these assignments can all be made. Implicit is the assumption
that the relative velocities are constant (but arbitrary).
The Mapping Postulate and the Homogeneity postulate imply that the
transformation equations are linear, with coefficients independent
of position. That is
x' = A(u)*x + D(u)*t + E(u) 1
t' = B(u)*x + C(u)*t + F(u) 2
The coefficients (A,B,C,D,E,F) can depend upon the relative velocity
between S' and S (i.e. upon u), but there is no other quantity that
can have physical relevance. Thus, eqn 1 & 2 are the most general
possible transformation equations satisfying the postulates.
This is important; if there were other powers of x or t on
the right-hand side, the transformation would not be one-to-one
everywhere. If the coefficients depended upon x or t (as they
do in General Relativity - see below), then space-time would
not be homogeneous and isotropic.
[Some other derivations use a postulate that straight lines
are transformed into straight lines to deduce the linearity
of the transformation equations.]
The translation terms (E(u) and F(u)) can easily be calculated,
based upon the construction of the systems S and S'; they are both 0.
They are not functions of u, because we arranged for coincident coordinate
origins independently of u (i.e. for each value of u, the origins were
individually arranged to be coincident). This is true also for the
other transformations (S' to S", and S to S"). The Homogeneity Postulate
guarantees that this choice has no physical significance.
Since S' is moving with velocity u relative to S, the point x'=0
is moving with velocity u (with respect to S); this allows us to
solve for D(u), with no loss in generality:
x' = A(u) * (x - u*t) 3
t' = B(u)*x + C(u)*t 4
Note: u=0 is certainly possible, in which case S'==S, so A(0)=1,
B(0)=0, C(0)=1 (i.e. x'=x and t'=t). In the following, u and v will
be assumed to be non-zero, but w will have no such restriction.
The transformations S' to S", and S to S" follow similarly:
x" = A(v) * (x' - v*t') 5
t" = B(v)*x' + C(v)*t' 6
x" = A(w) * (x - w*t) 7
t" = B(w)*x + C(w)*t 8
We will now use the Group Postulate to compose Eqns 3 and 4 with
Eqns 5 and 6, to get 7 and 8 (i.e. u and v are arbitrarily fixed,
and w will be determined from them).
Substituting 3 and 4 into 5 and 6:
x" = [A(v)*A(u) - A(v)*v*B(u)]*x -
[A(v)*v*C(u) + A(v)*A(u)*u]*t 9
t" = [B(v)*A(u) + C(v)*B(u)]*x +
[(-u)*B(v)*A(u) + C(v)*C(u)]*t 10
Comparing 9 and 10 with 7 and 8, and equating coefficients of
x and t (Eqns 7-10 are each valid for ALL x and ALL t), we conclude:
A(w) = A(v)*A(u) - A(v)*v*B(u) 11
w*A(w) = A(v)*v*C(u) + A(v)*A(u)*u 12
B(w) = B(v)*A(u) + C(v)*B(u) 13
C(w) = C(u)*C(v) - u*B(v)*A(u) 14
Now, let's consider the special case v=-u. Then 5&6 will be the
inverse of 3&4 (Relativity Postulate), so w=0. 11-14 become:
1 = A(-u)*A(u) + u*A(-u)*B(u) 15
0 = A(-u)*(-u)*C(u) + A(-u)*A(u)*u 16
0 = B(-u)*A(u) + C(-u)*B(u) 17
1 = C(u)*C(-u) - u*B(-u)*A(u) 18
Assuming u*A(-u) is non-zero (see below), eqn 16 says:
C(u) = A(u) 19
[Note this is true in general (not just for v=-u); it is
a mathematical statement about the two functions, valid
for all u.]
The Isotropy postulate requires that C(-u) = C(u) [if I boost S'
in a different direction (i.e. backwards), the clocks of S' must
be affected exactly the same as before]. This plus eqn 17 gives:
B(-u) = -B(u) 20
[Note that the stated symmetries of A(u), B(u), and C(u) are
all consistent with their values at u=0 given above.]
Eqns 15-18 reduce to:
1 = A(u)**2 + u*A(u)*B(u) 21
Returning to the general case (arbitrary v), Eqns 11-14 become:
A(w) = A(v)*A(u) - v*A(v)*B(u) 22
w*A(w) = v*A(u)*A(v) + u*A(u)*A(v) 23
B(w) = B(v)*A(u) + A(v)*B(u) 24
A(w) = A(u)*A(v) - u*B(v)*A(u) 25
[Note the symmetry of Eqns 22-25 under interchange of u <-> v
(interchange 22 and 25); this is expected, as adding collinear
velocities should not depend upon their order.]
Eqns 22 and 25 yield:
v*A(v)*B(u) = u*B(v)*A(u) 26
or (assuming u*A(u) and v*A(v) are both non-zero):
B(u)/(u*A(u)) = B(v)/(v*A(v)) 27
Since Eqn 27 must hold for all u and for all v, eqn 27 must
be a universal constant; call it q:
q == B(u)/(u*A(u)) = B(v)/(v*A(v)) 28
or
B(u) = q*u*A(u) 29
Substituting 29 into Eqn 21 gives:
1 = A(u)**2 + q*u**2*A(u)**2 30
Solving for A(u) gives:
A(u) = 1/sqrt(1+q*u**2) 31
Combining Eqns 3, 4, 19, 29, and 31, we have the general form of
the transformation equations:
A(u) = 1/sqrt(1+q*u**2) 31
x' = A(u) * (x - u*t) 32
t' = q*u*A(u)*x + A(u)*t 33
By solving Eqn 22 for w, we get the rule for composition of velocities:
w = (u + v) / (1 - q*u*v) 34
The choice of q is arbitrary. There are three basic choices that
have significantly different behavior: zero, negative, and positive.
This is the topological choice mentioned above.
Choosing q=0 yields the Galilean transformation:
x' = x - u*t 35
t' = t 36
w = u + v 37
Note the universal time; velocities simply add.
These are the "familiar" transformation equations that are
approximately true (to very high accuracy) in our ordinary
lives where velocities are small.
Choosing q<0 yields the Lorentz transformation. By convention,
define a constant, c, by q==-1/c**2 [manifestly negative], and let
G(u/c)==A(u), we have:
x' = G(u/c) * (x - (u/c)*ct) 38
ct' = -(u/c)*G(u/c)*x + G(u/c)*ct 39
G(u/c) = 1/sqrt(1-(u/c)**2) 40
w/c = (u/c + v/c) / (1 + (u/c)*(v/c)) 41
Here, ct and ct' are the time coordinates multiplied by c
(which gives them the same units as x and x': length).
Normally, G(u/c) is called gamma, and u/c is called beta.
In the limit u/c -> 0, 38-41 reduce to 35-37, the Galilean
transformation. Here, velocities do not simply add, but have a
more complicated composition rule; an object moving with
velocity c in one frame moves with velocity c in all frames.
Note, however, that the transformation equations are not
well-behaved when transforming to a frame moving with
velocity c; the velocity c serves as a limiting velocity,
because G(u/c) goes to infinity as u/c goes to 1. Eqn 41
guarantees that the composition of two velocities will be
less than c, as long as the individual velocities are each
less than c. If u/c > 1, imaginary numbers appear, leading
most physicists to be sceptical of the physical applicability
of such velocities.
Choosing q>0 yields a third transformation;
here q==+1/c**2 [manifestly positive], and H(u/c)==A(u):
x' = H(u/c) * (x - (u/c)*ct) 42
ct' = (u/c)*H(u/c)*x + H(u/c)*ct 43
H(u/c) = 1/sqrt(1+(u/c)**2) 44
w/c = (u/c + v/c) / (1 - (u/c)*(v/c)) 45
This transformation can be cast into more familiar form by substituting:
u = c * tan(k) (where k,l,m are in the range -PI/2 < k,l,m < +PI/2 )
v = c * tan(l)
w = c * tan(m)
Then the transformation becomes (with some analytic continuation and
trigonometric identities):
x' = x * cos(k) - ct * sin(k) 46
ct' = x * sin(k) + ct * cos(k) 47
H(u/c) = 1/sqrt(1+tan(k)**2) = cos(k) 48
m = k + l 49
This transformation is clearly a simple Euclidean transformation,
in which the time coordinate behaves just like the spatial
coordinate, and boosts are simple rotations. The limit
(u/c) -> 0 still yields the Galilean transformation.
The velocity c serves as a velocity "scale", but nothing
dramatic happens to the transformation when (u/c) = 1
(i.e. k = PI/4), or when (u/c) > 1. The singularity
of Eq. 45 disappears when "velocities" are viewed as "angles"
in Eq. 49. Note that two positive velocities greater than c
are composed into a NEGATIVE velocity (Eq. 45), which is explained
by Eq. 46-49 as simply going more than halfway around a circle.
Note that there is no velocity that is the same in all frames,
and that causality is not necessarily preserved by a coordinate
transformation (ct' can run BACKWARDS with respect to ct).
It seems very difficult to build a world view based upon
Eqs 42-45 (or 46-49).
Before discussing the implications of these transformation equations,
let me suggest the following exercises:
Exercise for the reader: At several places in the derivation,
the velocities u and v were assumed to be non-zero, as well
as some other functions of u or v were assumed to be non-zero.
Verify that all such assumptions are valid.
Exercise for the reader: Re-do the derivation while retaining
the translation terms of Eqns 1 and 2; show that their presence
doe not change the conclusions.
Exercise for experts: As you know, the full Poincare group
includes not only the boosts derived here, but also spatial
rotations and two point transformations: parity inversion
(x' = -x) and time reversal (t' = -t). Don't bother deriving
the equations for the full Poincare group (adding rotations
is trivial, but tedious). Instead, note that Eqns 31-33 were
derived from very general considerations, BUT DO NOT INCLUDE
THE POINT TRANSFORMATIONS. Point out exactly where they were
left out, and modify the derivation to retain them.
Identifying the actual topology of space-time can only be done by resorting
to physical observations of phenomena in the real world (i.e. by doing
an experiment). There is a tremendous body of experimental evidence that
shows that the speed of light is independent of the velocities of either
the source or observer (there are also many other, equivalent observations).
This compels us to choose the Lorentz Transformation (Eqns 38-41), and
to identify the arbitrary constant "c" with the speed of light. No other
choice is possible, while satisfying the four Postulates and the
experimental evidence.
This is why most (if not all) physicists today believe in Special
Relativity - it is IMPOSSIBLE to construct an alternative description
without violating one of the postulates or disregarding a very large
body of experimental evidence. If you truly believe that Special
Relativity simply must be false (for whatever reason), go back and
review the four Postulates, and find a hole in them.
Einstein DID find a hole in the four Postulates, and brought us
General Relativity. He was, in a very real sense, the first fish to
see the water, and to describe it.
Einstein's departure was in the Isotropy/Homogeneity Postulate -
he proposed that space-time is isotropic and homogeneous only within
an infinitesimal region of any given point in space-time; that is,
in the presence of matter, space-time itself is NOT homogeneous,
but its geometry is affected by the presence of matter.
[Before General Relativity, Cartesian coordinates were used as
a matter of course, and their applicability to the real world
was never challenged (Lagrangian mechanics is very different
from this). Physical theory had two basic parts, in which the
Laws of Physics possess many symmetries (such as isotropy and
homogeneity of space-time), while the initial conditions rarely
possess the same symmetries (this remains true today, but the
lesson has been learned to be careful). Implicitly, these
symmetries were applied GLOBALLY, to the entire space-time
(e.g. as in the statements of the Postulates above). After
General Relativity, Cartesian coordinates have been replaced
by general curvilinear coordinates, and the symmetries are LOCAL
in nature (i.e. apply only within each infinitesimal region of
space-time). Unfortunately, this generality causes enormous
complexity in the mathematics; curvilinear coordinates and
general coordinate transformations have not yet been successfully
applied to the other great advancement in physics of the
Twentieth Century - Quantum Mechanics.]
pholroyd
>> Bill Hobba wrote:
>>> Also understand that SR does not depend on the above to be true -
>>> it is possible as I have posted many times to develop SR without
>>> any mention light at all - an invariant speed arises naturally
>>> from the POR. Many experiments not having anything to do with
>>> light can be used to fix that speed - eg E=MC2, De Brogle Waves
>>> and the Lorentz Force law.
>>>
>>
>
> pholroyd wrote:
>> i not undrstand. how get sr without mention light at all? wheeler
>> say light sppeed only natural constant have units for convert time
>> to length. this must be in sr.
>>
>
> There are a number of ways - read the first chapter of Rindler -
> Introduction to special Relativity for a full discussion. Also I
> will post you Tom's excellent paper on SR that presents an even
> better derivation.
>
not know tom paper but use rindler one of 3 books in firsrt course
relativity. read whole book like very much.
> Here is the gist of Rindlers idea. Set s be the maximum speed
> information can be sent in an inertial frame. By the POR this
> speed must be the same in all inertal frames. Consider such a
> speed in frame 1 but viewed from frame 2 and call it s2. Since s
> is the maximum speed information can be sent s2 <= s. Suppose s2 <
> s then a speed s' > s2 but <= s can be found in frame
> 2. When viwed from frame 1 causality implies s' > s (think about
> this - if you do not understand I will post the exact reasoning)
> but by assumption s is the maximum speed hence s2 < s leads to a
> contradiction thus s2 = s ie this maximum speed is invariant. Thus
> we have derived an invariant speed s (it may be infinity) from the
> POR alone. Proceed to derive the Lorentz transformations in the
> usual way and you get the equations with an undetermined s. Many
> experiments can be used to fix that value - the Lorentz force law,
> high energy particle experiments checking for E=MC2, de brogle
> waves etc none of which have anything directly to do with light.
>
> BTW if you read Rindler be aware his explanation is slightly
> different in that it uses particle speed instead of information -
> the reasoning is exactly the same - I just prefer speed of
> information because the result, there is maximum speed information
> can be sent, is something you often see mentioned but not proved
> (Rindler in his book of course does prove it - however my argument
> also proves it as well).
>
rindlr show what you say to show use einstein 2nnd postulate. still
use light to detrmine invarint speed s to make relativity. othrwise
for infinite it galilaen.
> I will post you Toms excellent paper that gives an even better
> derivation.
>
thank you bill.
@@@ph@@@
pholroyd
> Hi pholroyd
>
hi bill
> Had a look at your email address and it looked like a dummy one -
> so - with apologies to those that have seen the paper before I
> decided to post it - I really should have kept the link - ah well
> you live and learn.
>
email not dummy. remove where it say remove to stop spammng.
thanbk you bill for paper. long paper i study later. it diffrent what
you say. you say get sr no refernce to light. rindlr and paper measur
s different frame. how measure without light?
@@@ph@@@
Paul B. Andersen
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> skrev i melding news:12a920hgsucirfq3r...@4ax.com...
> Listen you poor brainwashed senile old moron, it is POSSIBLE to construct a
> mathematical model of space and time such that Einstein's second postulate is
> always true. That doesn't mean the model has any connection with reality.
Indeed.
Well said.
So the question is - how do we test if the model has any connection
with reality?
Any suggestions?
A computer simulation maybe?
Paul
Paul B. Andersen
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> skrev i melding news:gmha20hkmch24e9pn...@4ax.com...
>
> I hope dinky van spittal is aware that his fumble collection will one day
> provide a priceless historical record of the steps that led to the downfall of
> Einsteinian relativity.
Well said, Henry.
A look at all that wisdom from the enlightened few makes
it quite apparent how right you are.
Paul
kenseto
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message
news:c07noi$19r$1...@dolly.uninett.no...
>
> "HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> skrev i melding
news:12a920hgsucirfq3r...@4ax.com...
> > Listen you poor brainwashed senile old moron, it is POSSIBLE to
construct a
> > mathematical model of space and time such that Einstein's second
postulate is
> > always true. That doesn't mean the model has any connection with
reality.
>
> Indeed.
> Well said.
> So the question is - how do we test if the model has any connection
> with reality?
You test if the model has any connection with reality by performing the
OWLS experiment with two spatially separated and synchronized clocks.
Or do the proposed experiment I have in the following link:
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Seto.pdf
Ken Seto
Androcles
someone didn't think of it sooner. Well done, Paul!
Let's see now... Astronomers are calculating the existence of (very large)
planets these days, found by observing the slight wobble of stars as they
orbit a common point. That is the same method by which Sirius B was
discovered, but of course there were no computers available then, so the
poor old astronomers had to calculate real numbers by hand from the
equations of Kepler. Today, they could simulate Kepler's equations with a
computer and feed the data in, and obtain the mass and orbit of the planet!
Paul, you should write that up in a paper and let them know.
Why, we could even take the simulation a stage further, and pretend (just
pretend, of course, because we know it isn't true, Einstein the great
astronomer said so) that the velocity of light in interstellar space was
source dependent!
Yes, I know it is a silly idea, but no harm in pretending... We can be like
children and learn to handle money by playing with chocolate coins and games
like Monopoly.
Let's pretend we are real astrometers. Never heard of it? It's similar to
geometers, measurers of the Earth - the word geometry has been with us for
quite some time. It refers to people that play games with circles and
triangles and ellipses and such, and say silly things like "these are
similar triangles" even if one is 100 times bigger than the other, the
fools...
Hmm...'sim'ilar, 'sim'ulate... I wonder if there is some 'sim'ilarity to
those 'sim'ple words we could 'sim'plify the meaning of? Something to do
with modelling, perhaps... drawings of buildings and ships and planes...even
Logo blocks...
Oh well, never mind...
Anyway, we could simulate what would happen if that silly idea of slow light
being passed by faster light actually happened, and what we would expect to
see. Yes, yes, I know it can't happen, Einstein said so and he had a real
astronomer, deSitter, to back him up. We are just pretending, remember. But
it is fun to pretend the light curve of V1493 Aql is an exact match to the
simulation, isn't it? Not to mention beta-Perseus, delta-Cepheus, SS Cyg and
a host of other stars...
Now, who could we ask to write such a program?
We don't want to pay him any money, of course, he'll have to do it for the
love of science.
He needs to be a professional, someone that has worked in the field of
simulation before... maybe flight simulation, perhaps.
Someone that has worked with the Federal Aviation Administration, devised
tests that are FAA approved because real flight simulators are serious
business, they are used to train professional pilots and put them through
regular check-flights ,and lives are at risk, especially American lives.
Others are not quite so important. It doesn't matter if a few Brits should
come under 'friendly' fire.
And of course it doesn't hurt any if he has some military experience as
well, simulating the Royal Navy's Sea Harrier based in Yeovilton, the Indian
Navy's Sea Harrier based in Vasco daGama, Goa, and the British Army's Lynx
Helicopter based in Detmold in the former West Germany.
If he should happen to an Electronic Engineer as well, having devised test
procedures and equipment for Concorde (which uses an analogue 'simulator' to
actually fly the plane) and the Anglo-German-Italian Tornado, so much the
better.
And of course there is the more mundane NASA's Boeing 737 simulator that
mimics a real plane that can be flown from the passenger cabin, built at
NASA Ames' research establishment in Redwood City, California where the big
wind tunnels are.
I think that would be the ideal person to simulate an elliptical orbit and
calculate what would happen if light really were source dependent, as we are
pretending it to be.
After all, as Henri said, it's only a mathematical model.
Preferably someone that doesn't think dtau/dt = 0 < 1, or tau = sin(t)...
You wouldn't happen to have heard of anybody like that, would you?
Maybe we could get him to do it 10 years ago, if we asked nicely.
http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/actual_data.htm
http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/C_Program_for_Copernicus.htm
http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/virus_alert.htm
Androcles
HenriWilson
wrote:
Maybe you are out of date, Paul. Just about every facet of science and
engineering is based on computer simulations these days.
Henri Wilson.
HenriWilson
wrote:
>
Naturally, some of it will have to be classified as 'rather ambitious
speculation'.
>
>Paul
>
Henri Wilson.
HenriWilson
wrote:
>
Incidentally, my simulation: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/photons.exe
will help you understand my original question just in case you actually want to
try to answer it. Of course I know you can't - so you wont.
Henri Wilson.
Robert J. Kolker
HenriWilson wrote:
>
> Maybe you are out of date, Paul. Just about every facet of science and
> engineering is based on computer simulations these days.
Actually not. Real measurements are made. Billions of dollars of
taxpayer money is spent to get real data, not computer fiddled displays.
Bob Kolker
Androcles
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in message
spending a penny of taxpayers money and I have correlated that data and
found it to be in agreement with a computer model, not one penny of
taxpayers money having been spent. I see no reason to subscribe to your
idea of wasting money, Kentucky Fried Kolker.
Although I have no objection to spending it on Hubble, I'm happy to see that
no Superconducting Super Collider was built for relativists to fool with.
Androcles
Bill Hobba
> rindlr show what you say to show use einstein 2nnd postulate. still
> use light to detrmine invarint speed s to make relativity. othrwise
> for infinite it galilaen.
Sure - but the point is it is a constant that naturally occurs in the
theory - the fact it has the value of the speed of light just fixes it.
Many simple arguments show it should be the speed of light - eg from
Maxwell's equations the speed of light is not dependant on the speed of the
source - it does not enter into the equations, or perhaps the Lorentz force
law - take your pick - there are many.
Thanks
Bill
Bill Hobba
> email not dummy. remove where it say remove to stop spammng.
>
> thanbk you bill for paper. long paper i study later. it diffrent what
> you say. you say get sr no refernce to light. rindlr and paper measur
> s different frame. how measure without light?
I am not quite sure what your trying to say. It may be the interesting
clock syncing issue - exactly how to you ensure that the origins coincide
and the clocks read zero without light. Interesting question - perhaps by
fireing a particle of fixed speed from the origin and having it bounce back
from the other frames origin and set the clocks to zero. When the particle
returns in a negligible amount of time then the origins are synced and time
is set to zero. I normally use TWLS but if you want to remove light from
the entire consideration other methods such as slow clock transport need to
be considered.
Thanks
Bill
Paul B. Andersen
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> skrev i melding news:1nvf205o1tr48upa6...@4ax.com...
Thought so. :-)
Paul
pholroyd
agree you say here. thaught you say more diffrent before. thank you
bill.
@@@ph@@@
pholroyd
light partcle fix speed. othr partcle different speed. use light
synchrnise clock. slow clock same. tjroberts papr explain.
@@@ph@@@
HenriWilson
wrote:
>
>"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> skrev i melding news:1nvf205o1tr48upa6...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 11:34:45 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> skrev i melding news:12a920hgsucirfq3r...@4ax.com...
>> >> Listen you poor brainwashed senile old moron, it is POSSIBLE to construct a
>> >> mathematical model of space and time such that Einstein's second postulate is
>> >> always true. That doesn't mean the model has any connection with reality.
>> >
>> >Indeed.
>> >Well said.
>> >So the question is - how do we test if the model has any connection
>> >with reality?
>> >
>> >Any suggestions?
>> >A computer simulation maybe?
>> >
>> >Paul
>> >
>>
>> Incidentally, my simulation: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/photons.exe
>>
>> will help you understand my original question just in case you actually want to
>> try to answer it. Of course I know you can't - so you wont.
>
>Thought so. :-)
>
>Paul
>
Well come on! Give us your explanation Paul.
Henri Wilson.
Paul B. Andersen
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> skrev i melding news:h6ij209qr5r13a1da...@4ax.com...
An explanation of how we test if a model has
any connection with reality?
Experimental evidence, Henry.
That's the only arbiter of true and false in physics.
That's why SR and GR are valid theories - they
have passed every test of connection with reality to date.
And that's why the source dependent light theory
is known to be wrong - it failed the reality test.
You see, Henry, it is POSSIBLE to construct a
mathematical model of space and time such that
the source dependent sped of light postulate is
always true. And it is POSSIBLE to make
a computer simulation such as:
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/movingframe.exe
illustrating the consequences of this model.
That doesn't mean the model has any connection with reality.
But Henry Wilson actually believe that Nature MUST
work according to his computer simulations.
What's clearly seen on a computer screen cannot be false.
Can it, Henry? :-)
Paul
kenseto
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message
news:c0da2a$hiu$1...@dolly.uninett.no...
Every test except an OWLS test with two spatially separted and
synchronized clocks.
Ken Seto
Androcles
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message
news:c0da2a$hiu$1...@dolly.uninett.no...
Actually, that is a lie. Name the experiment that proved Einstein's
unsubstantiated assertion "light is always propagated in empty space with a
definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the
emitting body".
The closest I think you'll find is
T. Alväger, F.J.M. Farley, J. Kjellman and I Wallin, "Test of the Second
Postulate of Relativity in the GeV Region'' Phys. Lett. 12 260-262 (1964);
which fails to make the test at all, the 'light' is emitted from within the
beryllium block. Of course, we know you consider blocks of beryllium to be
empty space, Paul, but I'm not quite as certain as you.
So...sorry to have to say it, but you, Paul Andersen, are a liar.
> You see, Henry, it is POSSIBLE to construct a
> mathematical model of space and time such that
> the source dependent sped of light postulate is
> always true. And it is POSSIBLE to make
> a computer simulation such as:
> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/movingframe.exe
> illustrating the consequences of this model.
> That doesn't mean the model has any connection with reality.
That is right, Paul. Relativity has no connection with reality, as you've
just pointed out.
>
> But Henry Wilson actually believe that Nature MUST
> work according to his computer simulations.
Just as Paul actually believes that Nature MUST work according to the
dictates of Einstein.
> What's clearly seen on a computer screen cannot be false.
> Can it, Henry? :-)
>
> Paul
What is written in a paper cannot be false, can it, nTaul of dtau/dt = 0 < 1
fame? :-)
Androcles
HenriWilson
wrote:
>
>"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> skrev i melding news:h6ij209qr5r13a1da...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 16:20:56 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >> Incidentally, my simulation: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/photons.exe
>> >>
>> >> will help you understand my original question just in case you actually want to
>> >> try to answer it. Of course I know you can't - so you wont.
>> >
>> >Thought so. :-)
>> >
>> >Paul
>> >
>>
>> Well come on! Give us your explanation Paul.
>
>An explanation of how we test if a model has
>any connection with reality?
>
>Experimental evidence, Henry.
>That's the only arbiter of true and false in physics.
>That's why SR and GR are valid theories - they
>have passed every test of connection with reality to date.
That's the kind of nonsense they preach in a mosque.
...prove to me that all suicide bombers are not sitting comfortably beside
allah!
>And that's why the source dependent light theory
>is known to be wrong - it failed the reality test.
Not so. The analyses supposedly refuting source dependency were fundamentally
flawed.
>
>You see, Henry, it is POSSIBLE to construct a
>mathematical model of space and time such that
>the source dependent sped of light postulate is
>always true. And it is POSSIBLE to make
>a computer simulation such as:
>www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/movingframe.exe
>illustrating the consequences of this model.
>That doesn't mean the model has any connection with reality.
It is nice to see you quoting my own words Paul. You are certainly learning,
albeit slowly.
>
>But Henry Wilson actually believe that Nature MUST
>work according to his computer simulations.
>What's clearly seen on a computer screen cannot be false.
>Can it, Henry? :-)
Not if the maths are right.
>
>Paul
>
Henri Wilson.
HenriWilson
>
>"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message
>news:c0da2a$hiu$1...@dolly.uninett.no...
>>
>actually want to
>> > >> try to answer it. Of course I know you can't - so you wont.
>> > >
>> > >Thought so. :-)
>> > >
>> > >Paul
>> > >
>> >
>> > Well come on! Give us your explanation Paul.
>>
>> An explanation of how we test if a model has
>> any connection with reality?
>>
>> Experimental evidence, Henry.
>> That's the only arbiter of true and false in physics.
>> That's why SR and GR are valid theories - they
>> have passed every test of connection with reality to date.
>
>Every test except an OWLS test with two spatially separted and
>synchronized clocks.
I have told you before Ken. For a true OWLS experiment the source must move
relative to the observer. Your kind of experiment will only show OWLS
anisotropy IF an absolute aether exists.
It will produce a null result under source dependency or an unresolvable result
if there is any directional difference in light tavel times.
>
Henri Wilson.
kenseto
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
news:487l201ebm5mfo0qj...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 09:06:46 -0500, "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message
> >news:c0da2a$hiu$1...@dolly.uninett.no...
> >>
>
> >actually want to
> >> > >> try to answer it. Of course I know you can't - so you wont.
> >> > >
> >> > >Thought so. :-)
> >> > >
> >> > >Paul
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > Well come on! Give us your explanation Paul.
> >>
> >> An explanation of how we test if a model has
> >> any connection with reality?
> >>
> >> Experimental evidence, Henry.
> >> That's the only arbiter of true and false in physics.
> >> That's why SR and GR are valid theories - they
> >> have passed every test of connection with reality to date.
> >
> >Every test except an OWLS test with two spatially separted and
> >synchronized clocks.
>
> I have told you before Ken. For a true OWLS experiment the source must
move
> relative to the observer. Your kind of experiment will only show OWLS
> anisotropy IF an absolute aether exists.
Is there no limit to your stupidity?. How can you measure an OWLS if the
distance between the source and the detector (observer) is varying with
time?
My proposed experiment will settle the question once and for all if an
absolute aether frame exists.
> It will produce a null result under source dependency or an unresolvable
result
> if there is any directional difference in light tavel times.
There are plenty of experiments refuted your claim of source dependency.
There is no directional difference in light travel time. The fact that you
refused to accept the results of these experiments is your problem.
BTW, you might look at the papers that show that the speed of light is
isotropic experimentally.
Ken Seto
Paul B. Andersen
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> skrev i melding
See? :-)
Paul
HenriWilson
>
>"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
>news:487l201ebm5mfo0qj...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 09:06:46 -0500, "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Experimental evidence, Henry.
>> >> That's the only arbiter of true and false in physics.
>> >> That's why SR and GR are valid theories - they
>> >> have passed every test of connection with reality to date.
>> >
>> >Every test except an OWLS test with two spatially separted and
>> >synchronized clocks.
>>
>> I have told you before Ken. For a true OWLS experiment the source must
>move
>> relative to the observer. Your kind of experiment will only show OWLS
>> anisotropy IF an absolute aether exists.
>
>Is there no limit to your stupidity?. How can you measure an OWLS if the
>distance between the source and the detector (observer) is varying with
>time?
Easily Ken. You simulateously compare the travel time of light from a moving
source with that from one at rest, over a fixed but arbirary distance. You
don't have to know the actual distance becasue you can assume the light speed
from the fixed source is c.
You can reverse the direction of one of the rays if you want to be sure.
>My proposed experiment will settle the question once and for all if an
>absolute aether frame exists.
It doesn't.
But I agree your experiment is the similar to one I proposed some time ago and
should show OWLS anisotropy is an aether exists.
>
>> It will produce a null result under source dependency or an unresolvable
>result
>> if there is any directional difference in light tavel times.
>
>There are plenty of experiments refuted your claim of source dependency.
There are none.
Even relativists agree light moves at c relative to its source.
>There is no directional difference in light travel time.
Do you mean 'between fixed points in absolute space'?
>The fact that you
>refused to accept the results of these experiments is your problem.
>BTW, you might look at the papers that show that the speed of light is
>isotropic experimentally.
I have. They all directly support short range source dependency.
>
>Ken Seto
>
Henri Wilson.