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: Androcles on 31 Oct 2009 16:56 "Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message news:828pe5l2bndm3kvch5ih3jb95vh83tct75(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 07:13:46 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >>On Oct 31, 2:26 am, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote: >>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:34:04 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >On Oct 30, 4:29 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote: > >>> >> >> ...and if two rays have different closing speeds on the same >>> >> >> object as >>> >> >> determined by the same observer, then it is bloody obvious they >>> >> >> don't have the >>> >> >> same speed at all. >>> >>> >> >And where is that the case? >>> >>> >> You claim that the closing speed of S2 on O2 is not c is the type of >>> >> fairytale >>> >> one would expect to hear in a madhouse or a mosque....or, of course, >>> >> in the >>> >> home of an aetherist.. >>> >>> >Nonsense. In the frame drawn, light is traveling from right to left at >>> >c. In the frame drawn, O2 is traveling from right to left at v. >>> >By *definition* of closing speed (you perhaps should look it up), it >>> >is c-v. >>> >>> >Closing speed is DEFINED as the numerical difference between the >>> >speeds of two objects, as seen by an observer that is neither of those >>> >objects. >>> >>> Funny! that sounds just like Netonian definition of speed. >> >>That's how it's defined. Now, you will notice that this closing speed >>does not correspond to a *measurable* quantity. The *measured* >>relative speed between those two bodies is the measurement done by one >>of the bodies. And in that case you find that the measured value does >>not match the numerical difference found in the closing speed. This is >>where the break with Newtonian physics happens. > > OK let's get this straight. Yes... let's get it straight. DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS.
From: rotchm on 31 Oct 2009 17:45 > Well, if the speed of S2's light is definitely known to be c wrt O2 and... > and SR says it is closing on O2 at c-v, But SR does not say that, nor does classical kinematics at that matter.
From: Androcles on 31 Oct 2009 17:55 "Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message news:c2bpe51vfeo6f1gv7jkksvugq2cf1i2811(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 20:56:33 -0000, "Androcles" > <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_p> > wrote: > >> >>"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message >>news:828pe5l2bndm3kvch5ih3jb95vh83tct75(a)4ax.com... >>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 07:13:46 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>On Oct 31, 2:26 am, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:34:04 -0700 (PDT), PD >>>>> <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >On Oct 30, 4:29 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote: >>> >>>>> >> >> ...and if two rays have different closing speeds on the same >>>>> >> >> object as >>>>> >> >> determined by the same observer, then it is bloody obvious they >>>>> >> >> don't have the >>>>> >> >> same speed at all. >>>>> >>>>> >> >And where is that the case? >>>>> >>>>> >> You claim that the closing speed of S2 on O2 is not c is the type >>>>> >> of >>>>> >> fairytale >>>>> >> one would expect to hear in a madhouse or a mosque....or, of >>>>> >> course, >>>>> >> in the >>>>> >> home of an aetherist.. >>>>> >>>>> >Nonsense. In the frame drawn, light is traveling from right to left >>>>> >at >>>>> >c. In the frame drawn, O2 is traveling from right to left at v. >>>>> >By *definition* of closing speed (you perhaps should look it up), it >>>>> >is c-v. >>>>> >>>>> >Closing speed is DEFINED as the numerical difference between the >>>>> >speeds of two objects, as seen by an observer that is neither of >>>>> >those >>>>> >objects. >>>>> >>>>> Funny! that sounds just like Netonian definition of speed. >>>> >>>>That's how it's defined. Now, you will notice that this closing speed >>>>does not correspond to a *measurable* quantity. The *measured* >>>>relative speed between those two bodies is the measurement done by one >>>>of the bodies. And in that case you find that the measured value does >>>>not match the numerical difference found in the closing speed. This is >>>>where the break with Newtonian physics happens. >>> >>> OK let's get this straight. >> >>Yes... let's get it straight. DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS. > > ...and do not allow oneself to become one... I don't but D.umb Sc.umbag after my name, I don't need to lie.
From: Sebastian Garth on 31 Oct 2009 19:50 >> To measure OWLS, two synched clocks are required....and SR says it is impossible to synch separated clocks. Impractical, maybe, but certainly not impossible. Let's say you syncronize clock C2 with C1 which is located at observatory O1. The very act of transporting C2 to observatory O2 necessarily means that upon it's arrival, C2 will be slightly 'younger' than C1, since any acceleration is going to introduce a time-dialation discrepency, however minute. Of course, if you knew the exact vectors of motion then you could adjust accordingly, but again, that just isn't very practical. >> Although it is very difficult to measure OWLS from a moving source, it is possible to COMPARE OWLS from two differently moving sources. This can be done using binary stars. ....and both Androcles and I have written substantial computer programs that simulate brightness curves on the basis that lots of starlight is emitted a c + vcos(xt) wrt us. That isn't even necessary. If you want to, say, measure the speed of a light ray originating from an object that is rapidly approaching, just set up an ordinary two-way light experiment and redirect the incoming ray to the second observatory. >> The results show pretty convincingly that Einstein's second postulate is wrong...as is his whole stupid theory.. Nothing is more convincing than a theory confirmed by experiment. Anything else is just speculative talk, as far as I'm concerned.
From: BURT on 31 Oct 2009 21:03
Togetherness in the aether is Unification Principle. Everything exists together. Mitch Raemsch |