Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: OWLS is not equal to c
Next: Mathematical Inconsistencies in Einstein's Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation
From: Henri Wilson on 14 Oct 2005 17:20 On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 00:29:18 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >news:ukptk1lss404faaskc0l67n60lfoco9vnb(a)4ax.com... >> On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 22:26:27 +0100, "George Dishman" >> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >> wrote: >>>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >>>news:fleok1hd7adh1f00sgl3hbuphb38cmr6cr(a)4ax.com... >>>> On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 21:33:30 +0100, "George Dishman" >>>> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>>... >>>>>Blow into a whistle and you get a note. Put the whistle >>>>>on a string and whirl it round your head so that it is >>>>>always the same distance from your ear. Do you think >>>>>the note would be the same or different? >>>>> >>>>>I wonder what Henri would say. >>>> >>>> Assuming the air around you remains still, >>> >>>I had intended to say that but it got lost in >>>the typing :-( >>> >>>> the pitch would be lower if your >>>> head was also spinning in the same direction. >>> >>>That, the ear being off-centre clouds the >>>issue. Suppose we replace the head with an >>>omni-directional microphone exactly at the >>>centre of the circular path of the whistle? >>> >>>Hint: no tick fairies. >> >> Actually, this is quite a complex problem if you want to consider >> the finer details of air flow around the whistle itself. > >No, I was just using it as a source of a frequency >which was independent of the motion as long as the >speed was high enough. > >> I should imagine that there would be no doppler shift if >> that was ignored. There is no radial velocity. > >Correct. If not there would be lost ticks. I'm >ignoring relativistic time dilation of course, >that's a subject for another time. > >The point is that even though there is a finite >propagation time, there is still no "transverse >Doppler". But that only applies at the very centre. To an observer at any point between the centre and the whistle, there IS doppler. The length between the whistle and observer is then constantly changing. It reaches maximum and minimum when the three points are in line. I haven't worked out the position where maximum doppler occurs.....but that shouldn't be too difficult. > >George > HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
From: bz on 14 Oct 2005 17:39 "george(a)briar.demon.co.uk" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in news:1129289390.452662.187200(a)o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com: > > jgr...(a)seol.net.au wrote: >> George Dishman wrote: >> > "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >> > news:a4cok15ekbocc95d6ahg68foum9hm082hn(a)4ax.com... >> > > On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 21:19:34 +0100, "George Dishman" >> > > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >> > > wrote: >> > >> >> > >>... the distance from source to mirror is >> > >>constant so no Doppler. The fact that it is >> > >>delayed makes no difference, there is no >> > >>radial component as you say yourself later. >> > > >> > > OK. Yes true. Not wrt the centre of the mirror. >> > >> > That should be your clue to the whistle question ;-) > ... >> Doppler (sound) is due to CHANGING distance between source and >> receiver; if the distance is not changing, NEITHER is the frequency >> observed by receiver >> > > >> > > CMIIW, but in the case of objects like the Earth and moon, >> > > moonlight would be doppler shifted on the SURFACE of the Earth due >> > > to the EARTH'S rotation. >> >> The surface is not the center of the moon's orbit! An observer anywhere >> but at the center of the whistle's orbit will hear a fluctuating note >> too. > > Nice one Jim. Do you realise that you, Henri and I are now > all in complete agreement? That has to be a first. :-) BZ agrees too. :) -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
From: Jeff Root on 14 Oct 2005 19:55 I wrote: >>> The actual rotation period of the Milky Way at the Solar >>> System is about 200,000,000 to 250,000,000 years. .... > Although, as stated later, the Galaxy has actually rotated > only about 20 times since it formed. I seem to have a problem getting these numbers right. Jim and George collaboratively computed that the Milky Way has rotated about 20 times since the *Earth* formed. But the Milky Way has rotated about 60 times since the Milky Way formed. Close to the figure originally stated! -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
From: George Dishman on 15 Oct 2005 05:04 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:1u60l1t5qumtkfhqh5g9d45oqo4u64h3of(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 22:41:22 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: >>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >>news:a4cok15ekbocc95d6ahg68foum9hm082hn(a)4ax.com... ... >>> Once again that supports my 'photon-axis gyro' theory. >> >>Your 'photon-axis gyro theory' doesn't exist, >>you haven't published the equations. > > One must start with a concept. Sure, you have a concept but not a theory. >>> As far as I can see, there is no radial velocity between any two >>> components in ANY frame. >> >>Right, but there are a couple of complex points you >>are missing even neglecting the complication of using >>different frames for each leg. The origin of the >>mirror frame is not inertial, it is moving in a >>circle so you get an apparent centrifugal force >>between the source and the mirror. That means you >>also get "gravitational redshift" and Shapiro delay. > > you can believe that if you want to. I wont. I'm not talking SR here, I think just applying Galilean relativity to Newtonian mechanics will give you an equivalent result. You might want to call it something like "centrifugal force redshift" to distinguish them. >>Also the speed of the light varies with the radius >>because the frame is accelerating. There are lots >>of tricky aspects to consider that come from using >>an accelerating origin. > > The whole thing is very tricky....particularly when nobody has a real clue > as > to what a 'photon' actually is. You may not. >>> So whether or not light speed is source dependent doesn't enter into the >>> argument. >> >>It enters too. If you take all the above into account, >>you will still get different answers if you compare a >>model where the light is moving at c in the lab frame >>or at c+kv where k depends on the number of mirrors. > > I maintain that each mirror is moving normally in the frame of the next. I agree, the motion is purely transverse. > This > means that source speed makes no difference to the fringe shifts. No it doesn't, it means the radial distance is constant. That in turn means the time taken is inversely proportional to the speed. Working out the speed becomes complex in the mirror frame. >>> We know why the MMX predicts a null result. >>> That's a very simple application of the BaTh. >> >>Yes, but Ritz predicts null for both MMX and Sagnac. > > Only in YOUR imagination. I've shown you the maths repeatedly or you can find it on several pages on the web if you don't trust me. It is a simple statement of fact that Ritz produces a null prediction for Sagnac. >>If you introduce a new feature like a "photon gyro" >>to produce a non-null result for Sagnac, it may also >>produce a non-null prediction for the MMX. > > It doesn't. You don't know that, you don't have any equations for your "photon gyro" concept so you can't do the calculation to find out. > The MMX result is straight forward. Without your "photon gyro" it is, you have no idea how that might affect it. > If the MMX apparatus is rotated, it becomes a sagnac. That depends on the details but generally it won't. The delay in Sagnac is propotional to the area enclosed by the path but in MMX the light usually returns back along the same path on each leg so the ennclosed area is zero. >>That's >>why you can't just guess, you have to write out the >>equations and work each of the experiments. If you >>can't provide the equations, you don't have a theory, >>just a speculation. > > One must begin with speculation. Sure, you have a speculation but not a theory. George
From: George Dishman on 15 Oct 2005 05:09
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:hp70l1d2jeh8nki5qk2si9fro9lkbulhf6(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 00:29:18 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: .... >>The point is that even though there is a finite >>propagation time, there is still no "transverse >>Doppler". > > But that only applies at the very centre. > > To an observer at any point between the centre and the whistle, there IS > doppler. The length between the whistle and observer is then constantly > changing. Yes and that is because the radial distance is changing. If you want to calculate the shift, you only need to know the rate of change of radial distance, there is no component dependent on the transverse speed, hence no "transverse Doppler". > It reaches maximum and minimum when the three points are in line. Should you have said zero at those points? You talk of the maximum again next. > I haven't worked out the position where maximum doppler occurs.....but > that > shouldn't be too difficult. Indeed but it depends on the paths and speeds of both objects. George |