An Absolute Chronometer
in [Relativity]
|
From: Unified_Perspective on 7 Nov 2009 17:19 An Absolute Chronometer If the space between observers here on earth and a distant optical source were a perfect vacuum then the speed of the light rays coming from that source would depend only on the motion of that source compared to our position or motion. In that case, time dilation and frequency shift would be completely and solely dependent on relative motion. As a practical matter the intervening vacuum is extremely good, but not perfect. As this is the general case the result of Fizeau's experiments on the effect velocity and frequency of light moving through water also apply to light moving through an imperfect vacuum Similarly, Fizeau's results apply to Sagnac and Wang devices as these results are present in media of greater density than a perfect vacuum and so conform to the equation; V=(c/n+(v*(1-1/n^2) While the frequency is effected according to; (please see Wikipedia) where; is the velocity of waves in the medium is the velocity of the source relative to the medium is the velocity of the receiver relative to the medium. In the limit where the speed of the wave is much greater than the relative speed of the source and observer (this is often the case with electromagnetic waves, e.g. light), the relationship between observed frequency f and emitted frequency f0 is given by: Observed frequency f=(1/v(sub f,sub r)/c)*f(sub o) Change in frequency (Please see the wikipedia reference; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect) From this it can be clearly seen that the Doppler change in frequency is dependent upon the wavelength of the emission. As all visibly observable cosmological sources have emission spectra and these can be separated and analyzed it should be possible to measure a differential interval between spectral lines from different sources and make reasonable inferences about the absolute amount of space/time between the source and the observer. While this information would not necessarily be the much sought after and hoped for absolute chronometer for cosmology. With proper calibration, it could certainly contribute to those efforts. What I am herein proposing is that the chromatic aberration of an imperfect vacuum itself could potentially be used as a type of direct reading chronometer for any given observation. Similarly, in radio teloscopy there is I believe usually an assumption that the electromagnetic transmissivness of the media that intervenes between a given source and our observations is perfect. Clearly, this assumption could be critically examined. As a specific example most known high frequency pulsars are sources are observed to be in globular clusters. Regions of space time in which the average matter density is very high and in which it might be reasonable to assume that the imperfectness of the intervening vacuum is similarly quite high. In that case the pulsar effect could be largely due to the Doppler shifting of any rapidly rotating distantly observed source. The appeal of this is that extremely high rotational rates for extremely dense objects like black holes make physical sense while similar extremely high orbital rates for hypothetical binary pairs are problematic. We being in the near neighborhood to our own sun observe that there is a solar wind why then do we persist in the assumption that the combined effect of a multitude of solar winds are having no effect on our telescopic examinations of distant sources. A common misconception1 Craig Bohren pointed out in 1991 that some physics textbooks erroneously state that the observed frequency increases as the object approaches an observer and then decreases only as the object passes the observer.[3] In fact, the observed frequency of an approaching object declines monotonically from a value above the emitted frequency, through a value equal to the emitted frequency when the object is closest to the observer, and to values increasingly below the emitted frequency as the object recedes from the observer. Bohren proposed that this common misconception might occur because the intensity of the sound increases as an object approaches an observer and decreases once it passes and recedes from the observer and that this change in intensity is misperceived as a change in frequency. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect ) This is a very important observation. It implies that when we are observing very distant and very intense variable sources such as quasar's and neglecting the understanding that we observe them to be so intense for these very reasons. Properly corrected for both pitch and amplitude these very distant variable sources were certainly not as intense on average as we perceive them to have been. Reading the difference between the observed maximum intensity and the minimum intensity we are reading the elliptical distortion of the relative motion along the time axis and when we read the properly corrected mean frequency of the source we are reading the space axis. While it would be wonderful if we could simple compare the observed average frequency of the source and the corrected average frequency and obtain an direct read of the distance. This is not possible. This comparison will only yield an estimate of the relative motion between the source and the observation. Usefull information, but not absolute. However, if a variable source is observed and a comparison is made between the observed Doppler red shift due to relative motion between the source and observer and this is compared to the transverse Doppler shift due to the rotary motion of the source then an direct inference can be made about the about the amount of both space and time that separate source and observer in an absolute reference frame. An absolute chronometer if you will. It should be noted that that the previously mentioned transverse Doppler red shift will be most apparent when the source is moving at right angles to the observer and that this transverse Doppler shift is only predicted by relativity and not by classical theory. Further, it is part of my hypothesis is that the observed pulsing of a high frequency pulsar source of this type can be in part attributed to the common misconception mention above. In the case of radio astronomy this hypothesis should be testable by segmenting a given pulsar's emission's into elliptic frequency cones analogous to the elliptical light cones illustrated in Hans de Vries pre-publication book Understanding Relativistic Quantum Field Theory - "Figure 4.10: Intersections with the 2+1 dimensional light cones" There would be a strong tendency on the part of most annalists to segment the sources observed cycle into pie shaped segments of equal angles, and in fact later on Han's does this. While this type of segmentation is correct for a time corrected and Lorentz dilated frequency diagram the segmentation for a Doppler shifted source should obey the equal areas in equal times relationship first deduced as correct by Johann Kepler for elliptical orbital period of Mars. In summary, I believe that by carefully examining the subtle differences between the true, slightly cloudy space of our universe and the perfect vacuum of our idealized models we can infer a great deal about the nature of that universe. The fact that a relativistic transformation of time dilation is frequency dependent and a Lorentzian contraction of space is frequency independent means that by careful comparison of mean frequency as compared to maximum frequency and minimum frequency along with comparison of maximum intensity and minimum intensity it should be possible to make very good inferences about the both the absolute amount of space, distance and the absolute amount of time dis- simultaneity from by correctly decomposing of the signal from a single variable source. I want to stress however that only careful analysis will do. The differences I propose should exist will be of the same character and quality as the very slight and subtle difference between the precession of the orbit of Mars as understood by classical mechanics and the more nearly correct precession predicted by Einstein. (This posting lost something in the conversion to usegroup format. If anyone wishes a cleaner copy please post an e-mail address and I will send one direct.)
From: Androcles on 7 Nov 2009 18:29 "Unified_Perspective" <agallist(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:9740c464-d4a5-464e-b980-ecbe48a3d482(a)y32g2000prd.googlegroups.com... An Absolute Chronometer =================================================== Well done, you've caught up to Newton. "Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature flows equably without regard to anything external, and by another name is called duration: relative, apparent, and common time, is some sensible and external (whether accurate or unequable) measure of duration by the means of motion, which is commonly used instead of true time; such as an hour, a day, a month, a year." -- Principia Mathematica. Anything else Newton can help you with? =================================================== If the space between observers here on earth and a distant optical source were a perfect vacuum then the speed of the light rays coming from that source would depend only on the motion of that source compared to our position or motion. In that case, time dilation and frequency shift would be completely and solely dependent on relative motion. As a practical matter the intervening vacuum is extremely good, but not perfect. As this is the general case the result of Fizeau's experiments on the effect velocity and frequency of light moving through water also apply to light moving through an imperfect vacuum Similarly, Fizeau's results apply to Sagnac and Wang devices as these results are present in media of greater density than a perfect vacuum and so conform to the equation; V=(c/n+(v*(1-1/n^2) While the frequency is effected according to; (please see Wikipedia) where; is the velocity of waves in the medium is the velocity of the source relative to the medium is the velocity of the receiver relative to the medium. In the limit where the speed of the wave is much greater than the relative speed of the source and observer (this is often the case with electromagnetic waves, e.g. light), the relationship between observed frequency f and emitted frequency f0 is given by: Observed frequency f=(1/v(sub f,sub r)/c)*f(sub o) Change in frequency (Please see the wikipedia reference; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect) From this it can be clearly seen that the Doppler change in frequency is dependent upon the wavelength of the emission. As all visibly observable cosmological sources have emission spectra and these can be separated and analyzed it should be possible to measure a differential interval between spectral lines from different sources and make reasonable inferences about the absolute amount of space/time between the source and the observer. While this information would not necessarily be the much sought after and hoped for absolute chronometer for cosmology. With proper calibration, it could certainly contribute to those efforts. What I am herein proposing is that the chromatic aberration of an imperfect vacuum itself could potentially be used as a type of direct reading chronometer for any given observation. Similarly, in radio teloscopy there is I believe usually an assumption that the electromagnetic transmissivness of the media that intervenes between a given source and our observations is perfect. Clearly, this assumption could be critically examined. As a specific example most known high frequency pulsars are sources are observed to be in globular clusters. Regions of space time in which the average matter density is very high and in which it might be reasonable to assume that the imperfectness of the intervening vacuum is similarly quite high. In that case the pulsar effect could be largely due to the Doppler shifting of any rapidly rotating distantly observed source. The appeal of this is that extremely high rotational rates for extremely dense objects like black holes make physical sense while similar extremely high orbital rates for hypothetical binary pairs are problematic. We being in the near neighborhood to our own sun observe that there is a �solar wind� why then do we persist in the assumption that the combined effect of a multitude of solar winds are having no effect on our telescopic examinations of distant sources. A common misconception1 �Craig Bohren pointed out in 1991 that some physics textbooks erroneously state that the observed frequency increases as the object approaches an observer and then decreases only as the object passes the observer.[3] In fact, the observed frequency of an approaching object declines monotonically from a value above the emitted frequency, through a value equal to the emitted frequency when the object is closest to the observer, and to values increasingly below the emitted frequency as the object recedes from the observer. Bohren proposed that this common misconception might occur because the intensity of the sound increases as an object approaches an observer and decreases once it passes and recedes from the observer and that this change in intensity is misperceived as a change in frequency.� (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect ) This is a very important observation. It implies that when we are observing very distant and very intense variable sources such as quasar's and neglecting the understanding that we observe them to be so intense for these very reasons. Properly corrected for both pitch and amplitude these very distant variable sources were certainly not as intense on average as we perceive them to have been. Reading the difference between the observed maximum intensity and the minimum intensity we are reading the elliptical distortion of the relative motion along the time axis and when we read the properly corrected mean frequency of the source we are reading the space axis. While it would be wonderful if we could simple compare the observed average frequency of the source and the corrected average frequency and obtain an direct read of the distance. This is not possible. This comparison will only yield an estimate of the relative motion between the source and the observation. Usefull information, but not absolute. However, if a variable source is observed and a comparison is made between the observed Doppler red shift due to relative motion between the source and observer and this is compared to the transverse Doppler shift due to the rotary motion of the source � then an direct inference can be made about the about the amount of both space and time that separate source and observer in an absolute reference frame. An absolute chronometer if you will. It should be noted that that the previously mentioned transverse Doppler red shift will be most apparent when the source is moving at right angles to the observer and that this transverse Doppler shift is only predicted by relativity and not by classical theory. Further, it is part of my hypothesis is that the observed pulsing of a high frequency pulsar source of this type can be in part attributed to the common misconception mention above. In the case of radio astronomy this hypothesis should be testable by segmenting a given pulsar's emission's into elliptic frequency cones analogous to the elliptical light cones illustrated in Hans de Vries pre-publication book �Understanding Relativistic Quantum Field Theory� - "Figure 4.10: Intersections with the 2+1 dimensional light cones" There would be a strong tendency on the part of most annalists to segment the sources observed cycle into pie shaped segments of equal angles, and in fact later on Han's does this. While this type of segmentation is correct for a time corrected and Lorentz dilated frequency diagram the segmentation for a Doppler shifted source should obey the equal areas in equal times relationship first deduced as correct by Johann Kepler for elliptical orbital period of Mars. In summary, I believe that by carefully examining the subtle differences between the true, slightly cloudy space of our universe and the �perfect� vacuum of our idealized models we can infer a great deal about the nature of that universe. The fact that a relativistic transformation of time dilation is frequency dependent and a Lorentzian contraction of space is frequency independent means that by careful comparison of mean frequency as compared to maximum frequency and minimum frequency along with comparison of maximum intensity and minimum intensity it should be possible to make very good inferences about the both the absolute amount of space, �distance� and the absolute amount of time �dis- simultaneity� from by correctly decomposing of the signal from a single variable source. I want to stress however that only careful analysis will do. The differences I propose should exist will be of the same character and quality as the very slight and subtle difference between the precession of the orbit of Mars as understood by classical mechanics and the more nearly correct precession predicted by Einstein. (This posting lost something in the conversion to usegroup format. If anyone wishes a cleaner copy please post an e-mail address and I will send one direct.)
From: BURT on 7 Nov 2009 20:21 On Nov 7, 3:29 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_p> wrote: > "Unified_Perspective" <agall...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:9740c464-d4a5-464e-b980-ecbe48a3d482(a)y32g2000prd.googlegroups.com... > An Absolute Chronometer > > =================================================== > > Well done, you've caught up to Newton. > > "Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature > flows equably without regard to anything external, and by another name is > called duration: relative, apparent, and common time, is some sensible and > external (whether accurate or unequable) measure of duration by the means of > motion, which is commonly used instead of true time; such as an hour, a day, > a month, a year." -- Principia Mathematica. > > Anything else Newton can help you with? > > =================================================== > If the space between observers here on earth and a distant optical > source were a perfect vacuum then the speed of the light rays coming > from that source would depend only on the motion of that source > compared to our position or motion. In that case, time dilation and > frequency shift would be completely and solely dependent on relative > motion. > > As a practical matter the intervening vacuum is extremely good, but > not perfect. As this is the general case the result of Fizeau's > experiments on the effect velocity and frequency of light moving > through water also apply to light moving through an imperfect vacuum > > Similarly, Fizeau's results apply to Sagnac and Wang devices as these > results are present in media of greater density than a perfect vacuum > and so conform to the equation; > > V=(c/n+(v*(1-1/n^2) > > While the frequency is effected according to; > > (please see Wikipedia) > > where; > is the velocity of waves in the medium > is the velocity of the source relative to the medium > is the velocity of the receiver relative to the medium. > > In the limit where the speed of the wave is much greater than the > relative speed of the source and observer (this is often the case with > electromagnetic waves, e.g. light), the relationship between observed > frequency f and emitted frequency f0 is given by: > > Observed frequency > > f=(1/v(sub f,sub r)/c)*f(sub o) > > Change in frequency > > (Please see the wikipedia reference;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect) > > From this it can be clearly seen that the Doppler change in frequency > is dependent upon the wavelength of the emission. As all visibly > observable cosmological sources have emission spectra and these can be > separated and analyzed it should be possible to measure a differential > interval between spectral lines from different sources and make > reasonable inferences about the absolute amount of space/time between > the source and the observer. While this information would not > necessarily be the much sought after and hoped for absolute > chronometer for cosmology. With proper calibration, it could certainly > contribute to those efforts. > > What I am herein proposing is that the chromatic aberration of an > imperfect vacuum itself could potentially be used as a type of direct > reading chronometer for any given observation. > > Similarly, in radio teloscopy there is I believe usually an assumption > that the electromagnetic transmissivness of the media that intervenes > between a given source and our observations is perfect. > > Clearly, this assumption could be critically examined. > > As a specific example most known high frequency pulsars are sources > are observed to be in globular clusters. Regions of space time in > which the average matter density is very high and in which it might be > reasonable to assume that the imperfectness of the intervening vacuum > is similarly quite high. In that case the pulsar effect could be > largely due to the Doppler shifting of any rapidly rotating distantly > observed source. The appeal of this is that extremely high rotational > rates for extremely dense objects like black holes make physical sense > while similar extremely high orbital rates for hypothetical binary > pairs are problematic. > > We being in the near neighborhood to our own sun observe that there is > a solar wind why then do we persist in the assumption that the > combined effect of a multitude of solar winds are having no effect on > our telescopic examinations of distant sources. > > A common misconception1 > > Craig Bohren pointed out in 1991 that some physics textbooks > erroneously state that the observed frequency increases as the object > approaches an observer and then decreases only as the object passes > the observer.[3] In fact, the observed frequency of an approaching > object declines monotonically from a value above the emitted > frequency, through a value equal to the emitted frequency when the > object is closest to the observer, and to values increasingly below > the emitted frequency as the object recedes from the observer. Bohren > proposed that this common misconception might occur because the > intensity of the sound increases as an object approaches an observer > and decreases once it passes and recedes from the observer and that > this change in intensity is misperceived as a change in > frequency. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect) > > This is a very important observation. It implies that when we are > observing very distant and very intense variable sources such as > quasar's and neglecting the understanding that we observe them to be > so intense for these very reasons. Properly corrected for both pitch > and amplitude these very distant variable sources were certainly not > as intense on average as we perceive them to have been. Reading the > difference between the observed maximum intensity and the minimum > intensity we are reading the elliptical distortion of the relative > motion along the time axis and when we read the properly corrected > mean frequency of the source we are reading the space axis. > > While it would be wonderful if we could simple compare the observed > average frequency of the source and the corrected average frequency > and obtain an direct read of the distance. This is not possible. This > comparison will only yield an estimate of the relative motion between > the source and the observation. Usefull information, but not absolute. > > However, if a variable source is observed and a comparison is made > between the observed Doppler red shift due to relative motion between > the source and observer and this is compared to the transverse Doppler > shift due to the rotary motion of the source then an direct > inference can be made about the about the amount of both space and > time that separate source and observer in an absolute reference > frame. > > An absolute chronometer if you will. > > It should be noted that that the previously mentioned transverse > Doppler red shift will be most apparent when the source is moving at > right angles to the observer and that this transverse Doppler shift is > only predicted by relativity and not by classical theory. > > Further, it is part of my hypothesis is that the observed pulsing of a > high frequency pulsar source of this type can be in part attributed to > the common misconception mention above. > > In the case of radio astronomy this hypothesis should be testable by > segmenting a given pulsar's emission's into elliptic frequency cones > analogous to the elliptical light cones illustrated in Hans de Vries > pre-publication book Understanding Relativistic Quantum Field Theory > - "Figure 4.10: Intersections with the 2+1 dimensional light cones" > > There would be a strong tendency on the part of most annalists to > segment the sources observed cycle into pie shaped segments of equal > angles, and in fact later on Han's does this. While this type of > segmentation is correct for a time corrected and Lorentz dilated > frequency diagram the segmentation for a Doppler shifted source should > obey the equal areas in equal times relationship first deduced as > correct by Johann Kepler for elliptical orbital period of Mars. > > In summary, I believe that by carefully examining the subtle > differences between the true, slightly cloudy space of our universe > and the perfect vacuum of our idealized models we can infer a great > deal about the nature of that universe. > > The fact that a relativistic transformation of time dilation is > frequency dependent and a Lorentzian contraction of space is > frequency independent means that by careful comparison of mean > frequency as compared to maximum frequency and minimum frequency along > with comparison of maximum intensity and minimum intensity it should > be possible to make very good inferences about the both the absolute > amount of space, distance and the absolute amount of time dis- > simultaneity from by correctly decomposing of the signal from a > single variable source. I want to stress however that only careful > analysis will do. > > The differences I propose should exist will be of the same character > and quality as the very slight and subtle difference between the > precession of the orbit of Mars as understood by classical mechanics > and the more nearly correct precession predicted by Einstein. > > (This posting lost something in the conversion to usegroup format. If > anyone wishes a cleaner copy please post an e-mail address and I will > send one direct.) We can never measure anything exact because the details of finite quantities go down to the level of the infinitely small. Just as there are an infinity of quantities inbetween zero and one. An example is point nine repeating followed by one. Mitch Raemsch
From: BURT on 8 Nov 2009 22:09 On Nov 7, 5:21 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Nov 7, 3:29 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_p> wrote: > > > > > > > "Unified_Perspective" <agall...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:9740c464-d4a5-464e-b980-ecbe48a3d482(a)y32g2000prd.googlegroups.com.... > > An Absolute Chronometer > > > =================================================== > > > Well done, you've caught up to Newton. > > > "Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature > > flows equably without regard to anything external, and by another name is > > called duration: relative, apparent, and common time, is some sensible and > > external (whether accurate or unequable) measure of duration by the means of > > motion, which is commonly used instead of true time; such as an hour, a day, > > a month, a year." -- Principia Mathematica. > > > Anything else Newton can help you with? > > > =================================================== > > If the space between observers here on earth and a distant optical > > source were a perfect vacuum then the speed of the light rays coming > > from that source would depend only on the motion of that source > > compared to our position or motion. In that case, time dilation and > > frequency shift would be completely and solely dependent on relative > > motion. > > > As a practical matter the intervening vacuum is extremely good, but > > not perfect. As this is the general case the result of Fizeau's > > experiments on the effect velocity and frequency of light moving > > through water also apply to light moving through an imperfect vacuum > > > Similarly, Fizeau's results apply to Sagnac and Wang devices as these > > results are present in media of greater density than a perfect vacuum > > and so conform to the equation; > > > V=(c/n+(v*(1-1/n^2) > > > While the frequency is effected according to; > > > (please see Wikipedia) > > > where; > > is the velocity of waves in the medium > > is the velocity of the source relative to the medium > > is the velocity of the receiver relative to the medium. > > > In the limit where the speed of the wave is much greater than the > > relative speed of the source and observer (this is often the case with > > electromagnetic waves, e.g. light), the relationship between observed > > frequency f and emitted frequency f0 is given by: > > > Observed frequency > > > f=(1/v(sub f,sub r)/c)*f(sub o) > > > Change in frequency > > > (Please see the wikipedia reference;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect) > > > From this it can be clearly seen that the Doppler change in frequency > > is dependent upon the wavelength of the emission. As all visibly > > observable cosmological sources have emission spectra and these can be > > separated and analyzed it should be possible to measure a differential > > interval between spectral lines from different sources and make > > reasonable inferences about the absolute amount of space/time between > > the source and the observer. While this information would not > > necessarily be the much sought after and hoped for absolute > > chronometer for cosmology. With proper calibration, it could certainly > > contribute to those efforts. > > > What I am herein proposing is that the chromatic aberration of an > > imperfect vacuum itself could potentially be used as a type of direct > > reading chronometer for any given observation. > > > Similarly, in radio teloscopy there is I believe usually an assumption > > that the electromagnetic transmissivness of the media that intervenes > > between a given source and our observations is perfect. > > > Clearly, this assumption could be critically examined. > > > As a specific example most known high frequency pulsars are sources > > are observed to be in globular clusters. Regions of space time in > > which the average matter density is very high and in which it might be > > reasonable to assume that the imperfectness of the intervening vacuum > > is similarly quite high. In that case the pulsar effect could be > > largely due to the Doppler shifting of any rapidly rotating distantly > > observed source. The appeal of this is that extremely high rotational > > rates for extremely dense objects like black holes make physical sense > > while similar extremely high orbital rates for hypothetical binary > > pairs are problematic. > > > We being in the near neighborhood to our own sun observe that there is > > a solar wind why then do we persist in the assumption that the > > combined effect of a multitude of solar winds are having no effect on > > our telescopic examinations of distant sources. > > > A common misconception1 > > > Craig Bohren pointed out in 1991 that some physics textbooks > > erroneously state that the observed frequency increases as the object > > approaches an observer and then decreases only as the object passes > > the observer.[3] In fact, the observed frequency of an approaching > > object declines monotonically from a value above the emitted > > frequency, through a value equal to the emitted frequency when the > > object is closest to the observer, and to values increasingly below > > the emitted frequency as the object recedes from the observer. Bohren > > proposed that this common misconception might occur because the > > intensity of the sound increases as an object approaches an observer > > and decreases once it passes and recedes from the observer and that > > this change in intensity is misperceived as a change in > > frequency. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect) > > > This is a very important observation. It implies that when we are > > observing very distant and very intense variable sources such as > > quasar's and neglecting the understanding that we observe them to be > > so intense for these very reasons. Properly corrected for both pitch > > and amplitude these very distant variable sources were certainly not > > as intense on average as we perceive them to have been. Reading the > > difference between the observed maximum intensity and the minimum > > intensity we are reading the elliptical distortion of the relative > > motion along the time axis and when we read the properly corrected > > mean frequency of the source we are reading the space axis. > > > While it would be wonderful if we could simple compare the observed > > average frequency of the source and the corrected average frequency > > and obtain an direct read of the distance. This is not possible. This > > comparison will only yield an estimate of the relative motion between > > the source and the observation. Usefull information, but not absolute. > > > However, if a variable source is observed and a comparison is made > > between the observed Doppler red shift due to relative motion between > > the source and observer and this is compared to the transverse Doppler > > shift due to the rotary motion of the source then an direct > > inference can be made about the about the amount of both space and > > time that separate source and observer in an absolute reference > > frame. > > > An absolute chronometer if you will. > > > It should be noted that that the previously mentioned transverse > > Doppler red shift will be most apparent when the source is moving at > > right angles to the observer and that this transverse Doppler shift is > > only predicted by relativity and not by classical theory. > > > Further, it is part of my hypothesis is that the observed pulsing of a > > high frequency pulsar source of this type can be in part attributed to > > the common misconception mention above. > > > In the case of radio astronomy this hypothesis should be testable by > > segmenting a given pulsar's emission's into elliptic frequency cones > > analogous to the elliptical light cones illustrated in Hans de Vries > > pre-publication book Understanding Relativistic Quantum Field Theory > > - "Figure 4.10: Intersections with the 2+1 dimensional light cones" > > > There would be a strong tendency on the part of most annalists to > > segment the sources observed cycle into pie shaped segments of equal > > angles, and in fact later on Han's does this. While this type of > > segmentation is correct for a time corrected and Lorentz dilated > > frequency diagram the segmentation for a Doppler shifted source should > > obey the equal areas in equal times relationship first deduced as > > correct by Johann Kepler for elliptical orbital period of Mars. > > > In summary, I believe that by carefully examining the subtle > > differences between the true, slightly cloudy space of our universe > > and the perfect vacuum of our idealized models we can infer a great > > deal about the nature of that universe. > > > The fact that a relativistic transformation of time dilation is > > frequency dependent and a Lorentzian contraction of space is > > frequency independent means that by careful comparison of mean > > frequency as compared to maximum frequency and minimum frequency along > > with comparison of maximum intensity and minimum intensity it should > > be possible to make very good inferences about the both the absolute > > amount of space, distance and the absolute amount of time dis- > > simultaneity from by correctly decomposing of the signal from a > > single variable source. I want to stress however that only careful > > analysis will do. > > > The differences I propose should exist will be of the same character > > and quality as the very slight and subtle difference between the > > precession of the orbit of Mars as understood by classical mechanics > > and the more nearly correct precession predicted by Einstein. > > > (This posting lost something in the conversion to usegroup format. If > > anyone wishes a cleaner copy please post an e-mail address and I will > > send one direct.) > > We can never measure anything exact because the details of finite > quantities go down to the level of the infinitely small. Just as there > are an infinity of quantities inbetween zero and one. An example is > point nine repeating followed by one. > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - A chronometer is an extra name for "a clock." Mitch Raemsch
|
Pages: 1 Prev: Relativity is when they don't know what they are doing ! Next: Riedt vs Einstein |