An Embarrassing Question for Relativists
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What's your guys' take on Moving Dimensions Theory? Vs. String Theory / LQG?
Next: Oldest Object In Universe - Massive Star Exploding - Indicates Big Bang Not Its Origin
From: Inertial on 30 Oct 2009 00:39 "Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message news:4nqke5pbanr4mqj9ekudp4c18ihk2adt1v(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 13:24:01 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> > wrote: > >>"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message >>news:brike599tjugaes12qclmpdgossm2fq5g2(a)4ax.com... >>> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 08:09:10 -0700 (PDT), kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>On Oct 28, 4:38 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote: >>>>> Consider two light sources and two observers as shown below. S1 is >>>>> connected to >>>>> O1 and S2 is connected to O2. O2 is moving at v relative to O1. >>>>> >>>>> O1----------------------------------------------------S1 >>>>> v<- O2---------------------------------------S2 >>>>> >>>>> According to SR, >>>>> >>>>> light from S1 moves at c towards O1. >>>>> >>>>> Light from S2 moves at c towards O2. >>>>> In other words, the CLOSING SPEED of light from S2 on O2 is c. >>>>> >>>>> However the CLOSING SPEED of light from S1 on O2 is c-v. >>>>> >>>>> So we have a situation in which two separate rays of light CLOSE ON O2 >>>>> at >>>>> different speeds. How can that happen? >>>> >>>>Henry the SRians argue that S1's light arrive at c as follows: >>>>c=(measure arriving frequency)(measured arriving wavelength) >>>>This arguement failed to realize that the light from S1 becomes a new >>>>light source in O2's frame and the frequency detector and the >>>>wavelength detector (the grating) in O2 will detect all light sources >>>>in the O2 frame to have a velocity of c.....for example sources such >>>>as sodium, mercury, H-Alpha in the O2 grating frame....etc all emit >>>>light with a speed of c. >>>>Closing speed got nothing to do with thwe arriving speed of light. >>>> >>>>However you do have a point as follows: >>>>1. Suppose that S1 is a sodium source with a universal wavelength of >>>>589 nm. >>>>2. during the transit of sodium light from S1 to O2 there is nothing >>>>that can change the wavelength of sodium light.....that means that the >>>>wavelength will remain at 589 nm. >>>>3. The detected arriving frequency is measured by the O2 detector. >>>>4. Therefore the arrival speed of light from S1 is calculated as >>>>follows: >>>>c'=(measured frequency)(universal wavelength of sodium 589 nm) >>>> >>>>Http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2008irt.dtg.pdf >>>> >>>>Ken Seto >>> >>> Ken, obviously the answer is trivial if an aether exists but let's not >>> complicate the question with that kind of argument. The fact is, >>> relativists >>> cannot explain how two rays that are approaching an object at different >>> speeds >>> can have the SAME speed relative to that object. >> >>But they are NOT approaching at different speeds. > > Preaching SR doesn't make it true. Lying about it doesn't make it false >>So there is nothing to >>explain. Except for why you posted this thread to start with when you >>must >>have known that you were going to be wrong again. Isn't it getting a bit >>depressing being wrong all the time .. or is that what your delusions are >>there to protect you from? > > You keep on repeating this, apparently as an exercise in 'self > reassurance'. > But you haven't been able to identify where I'm 'wrong'. I have. You state that the light is approaching O2 (closing speed) at tow different speeds. That is not possible as both rays are travellign at c relative to the observer., and so the closing speed is the same. So your question about how can they be different is nonsense
From: Inertial on 30 Oct 2009 00:40 "Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message news:jsqke5936rh07g17ulndhs7l9grcgctkbn(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 13:26:16 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> > wrote: > >>"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message >>news:81jke5dved8naupaunfsdico8rfjv23i47(a)4ax.com... >>> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 12:02:58 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>On Oct 28, 3:38 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote: >>>>> Consider two light sources and two observers as shown below. S1 is >>>>> connected to >>>>> O1 and S2 is connected to O2. O2 is moving at v relative to O1. >>>>> >>>>> O1----------------------------------------------------S1 >>>>> v<- O2---------------------------------------S2 >>>>> >>>>> According to SR, >>>>> >>>>> light from S1 moves at c towards O1. >>>>> >>>>> Light from S2 moves at c towards O2. >>>>> In other words, the CLOSING SPEED of light from S2 on O2 is c. >>>> >>>>Not in this frame. The CLOSING SPEED of light from S2 on O2 is c-v. >>>>However, in the frame where S2 and O2 are at rest and S1 and O1 are >>>>moving, then the closing speed of S2 on O2 is c. >>> >>> This is an interesting new slant. We now have a disagreement between the >>> members of the relativist fraternity. >> >>Nope .. no disagreement at all. We all agree you are wrong. >> >>> My question has split them into two camps. >> >>Nope. We're all saying the same thing. But you don't understand physics >>enough to see that. > > I'll let you fight it out with Diaper. We already agree, and nothing to figure out. We both know you're a lying idiot.
From: Androcles on 30 Oct 2009 05:50 "Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message news:uh4le59v2en28ukdebqe1j7q2sm1hr8o1e(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 15:40:06 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> > wrote: > >>"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message >>news:jsqke5936rh07g17ulndhs7l9grcgctkbn(a)4ax.com... >>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 13:26:16 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message >>>>news:81jke5dved8naupaunfsdico8rfjv23i47(a)4ax.com... >>>>> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 12:02:58 -0700 (PDT), PD >>>>> <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On Oct 28, 3:38 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote: >>>>>>> Consider two light sources and two observers as shown below. S1 is >>>>>>> connected to >>>>>>> O1 and S2 is connected to O2. O2 is moving at v relative to O1. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> O1----------------------------------------------------S1 >>>>>>> v<- O2---------------------------------------S2 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> According to SR, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> light from S1 moves at c towards O1. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Light from S2 moves at c towards O2. >>>>>>> In other words, the CLOSING SPEED of light from S2 on O2 is c. >>>>>> >>>>>>Not in this frame. The CLOSING SPEED of light from S2 on O2 is c-v. >>>>>>However, in the frame where S2 and O2 are at rest and S1 and O1 are >>>>>>moving, then the closing speed of S2 on O2 is c. >>>>> >>>>> This is an interesting new slant. We now have a disagreement between >>>>> the >>>>> members of the relativist fraternity. >>>> >>>>Nope .. no disagreement at all. We all agree you are wrong. >>>> >>>>> My question has split them into two camps. >>>> >>>>Nope. We're all saying the same thing. But you don't understand >>>>physics >>>>enough to see that. >>> >>> I'll let you fight it out with Diaper. >> >>We already agree, and nothing to figure out. We both know you're a lying >>idiot. > > > Let's start again shall we. Good idea. 1) Slow light passes fast light if the distance is great enough. 2) Orbits are inclined relative to the observer. 3) Wilson's unifuckation is bullshit, along with his "Dr." title. 4) Even an idiot like Inertial knows you are a lying idiot, we both do. 5) Keep digging. We'll just kick the dirt in on top of you.
From: rotchm on 30 Oct 2009 10:24 > Look at the diagram I drew in the original message. YOU are the third observer. > > The light from S1 approaches O2 at c-v. No it does not. Or, perhaps it does. I depends on what *you* mean. Your sentence is ambiguous and has different interpretations. Make it more clear: specify who is the observer ( specify relative to which frame). > The light from S2 approaches O2 at c. This sentence is a little more clear since it has basically has only one possible interpretation. > How by any stretch of the imagination can anyone claim that the two rays are > traveling at the same speed? They are: Wrt O1, *the* ray(s) are approaching O1 with speed c, no? Wrt O2, *the* ray(s) are approaching O2 with speed c, no? Now... Wrt O1, the *closing speed* between (the ray and O2) is c-v. Understand the difference? We are not talking about the *speed* of a ray. We are talking about *closing speed*, a totally different concept ( which has nothing to do with SR by the way). We are not talking about the speed of *a ray*. We are talking about a difference of speeds of *two* objects.
From: Inertial on 30 Oct 2009 10:28
"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message news:uh4le59v2en28ukdebqe1j7q2sm1hr8o1e(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 15:40:06 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> > wrote: > >>"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message >>news:jsqke5936rh07g17ulndhs7l9grcgctkbn(a)4ax.com... >>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 13:26:16 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message >>>>news:81jke5dved8naupaunfsdico8rfjv23i47(a)4ax.com... >>>>> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 12:02:58 -0700 (PDT), PD >>>>> <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On Oct 28, 3:38 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote: >>>>>>> Consider two light sources and two observers as shown below. S1 is >>>>>>> connected to >>>>>>> O1 and S2 is connected to O2. O2 is moving at v relative to O1. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> O1----------------------------------------------------S1 >>>>>>> v<- O2---------------------------------------S2 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> According to SR, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> light from S1 moves at c towards O1. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Light from S2 moves at c towards O2. >>>>>>> In other words, the CLOSING SPEED of light from S2 on O2 is c. >>>>>> >>>>>>Not in this frame. The CLOSING SPEED of light from S2 on O2 is c-v. >>>>>>However, in the frame where S2 and O2 are at rest and S1 and O1 are >>>>>>moving, then the closing speed of S2 on O2 is c. >>>>> >>>>> This is an interesting new slant. We now have a disagreement between >>>>> the >>>>> members of the relativist fraternity. >>>> >>>>Nope .. no disagreement at all. We all agree you are wrong. >>>> >>>>> My question has split them into two camps. >>>> >>>>Nope. We're all saying the same thing. But you don't understand >>>>physics >>>>enough to see that. >>> >>> I'll let you fight it out with Diaper. >> >>We already agree, and nothing to figure out. We both know you're a lying >>idiot. > > > Let's start again shall we. Oh good .. we get to laugh at you again > YOU and other relativists have always pointed out that if an observer is > approaching a light source at v, the light from that source will 'close > on' or > 'approach' the observer at c+v. You have stressed that this is allowed in > SR. It depends on the frame of reference, but in the frame of the source, then yes > Now: O1----------------------------------------------------S1 v<- O2---------------------------------------S2 I assume we're going to be talking in my frame .. the frame of the diagram which is also the frame of S1 and O1. And that be "closing on" you mean closing speed. And I assume you're talking about what SR says, as it is a question for relativists .. So let us continue ... > S1's light is closing on O2 at c-v. Yes, as the light is travelling at c and O2 travelling at v > S2's light is closing on O1 at c+v No. the closing speed is c, as O1 is at rest in my frame > S1's light must close on O1 at c. Yes > S2's light must close on O2 at c. No, the closing speed is c-v, as the light is travelling at c and O2 travelling at v > So according to any third observer, > the two rays close on O1 at c+v and c. No observer says that, except one for which v = 0 > And the two rays close on O2 at c-v and c. No observer says that, except one for which v = 0 > I want you to explain, in simple English, how two rays can have different > 'closing speeds' on the one object if they are traveling at the same speed > relative to that object. They don't. BAHAHAHA .. it was fun to laugh at your idiocy again. Do you enjoy making such a fool of yourself |