Prev: OWLS is not equal to c
Next: Mathematical Inconsistencies in Einstein's Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation
From: Jeff Root on 30 Oct 2005 19:07 Henri, Are you feeling particularly good right now? More energetic than usual? -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
From: "Androcles" <Androcles@ on 30 Oct 2005 19:22 "Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message news:32eam15m1fn6tgdluokaj7qi1g7e3bfkv2(a)4ax.com... | On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 01:40:45 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote: | | > | >"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message news:1j58m1pahavu0kcjiquh9gutl9o33kn9m5(a)4ax.com... | >| On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 01:04:28 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> | >| wrote: | >| | >| >HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in | >| >news:l745m1da6q7kfgjvm13oa1hfiu47h01f0u(a)4ax.com: | >| > | >| | >| >>>I showed that in a BaT universe, there is no reason to suppose that | >| >>>there is any limit on velocity. Yet you and I both accept the fact that | >| >>>it is impossible to accelerate a mass to a velocity greater than c. But | >| >>>in a BaT universe, there should NOT be any such limit, so what is going | >| >>>on? | >| >> | >| >> There isn't any limit. It is just too damn hard to achieve. | >| > | >| >Not hard in a BaT universe. Collide Two beams of protons, each going .6 c and | >| >you would have them colliding at a relative velocity of 1.2 c. | >| > | >| >In an Einsteinian universe, they only collide at 0.882 c. | >| | >| No. Their closing speed is still 1.2c. | >| | >| > | >| >Strangely enough, that is just about what they act like in our universe too. | >| | >| Who said that? | >| | >| >> Atmospheric Muons do it because they are produced in elastic collisions | >| >> with heavy particles traveling at high speed, possibly >c wrt Earth. | >| > | >| >Strange that no one has discovered any traveling faster than c. | >| | >| they discover them regularly. | >| | >| > | >| >>>> In a vacuum, light can impinge on an observer at a whole range of | >| >>>> speeds - and that is what happens. | >| >>> | >| >>>In a BaT universe, that is what would be true. In an Einsteinian | >| >>>universe light can only impinge on any observer at c. | >| >> | >| >> Who cares. | >| > | >| >You appear to care a lot. | >| > | >| >>>You have not been able to disprove the theory that all light impinges on | >| >>>any observer at c. | >| >> | >| >> It has never been disproved either. | >| > | >| >That is what I said. | >| > | >| >You have NOT been able to DISprove the theory that all light impinges on any | >| >observer at c. | >| | >| Typo | >| It has never been proved either. | >| | >| > | >| >>>> It also so happens that not many objects in the whole universe are | >| >>>> moving at anywhere near c wrt any other objects. | >| >>>> There have been recordings of doppler shift indicating gas bodies | >| >>>> moving at >c wrt Earth but the relativists concocted excuses for | >| >>>> these. | >| >>> | >| >>>Henri, if something were actually moving away from earth at speeds > c, | >| >>>the doppler shift would make the frequency negative. On the other hand, | >| >>>calculating CLOSING (opening) speeds for distant objects can easily | >| >>>indicate speeds greater than c. | >| >> | >| >> What the hell are you talking about? | >| >> ...negative frequency????? | >| > | >| >Calculate the doppler shift of light from something going away at c. You end | >| >up with a frequency of zero. (actually, you end up dividing by zero and that | >| >is undefined, but the LIMIT approaches zero) | >| > | >| >Now, calculate the frequency from a source going away faster than c. The | >| >frequency would be negative or imaginary. | >| | >| Its light would not reach you. | >| You wouldn't register any doppler shift. | >| | >| It cannot be made to happen anyway. | > | >Err... you are correct, H, a source going away would emit light | >that never reaches you, BUT... | >A negative frequency is what you get when a source approaches you, | >then passes. | >Let c = 1, v = 2 | > | >f' = f (c+v)/c | >3 = 1 * (1+2)/1 | >-1 = 1 * (-1+2)/-1 | >because c changes sign, v does not. | | That's a terminology. | | As far as I'm concerned, frequency is 'beats per second', which has to be | positive by nature. That's a terminology. | I cannot see why subtracting a positive number of 'beats/second' shold make | those beats negative. Cos the negative beats can't be seen, which is why you can't see 'em. Androcles. | > | >Androcles. | | | 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: Jeff Root on 30 Oct 2005 19:44 Jerry replied to Jeff Root: >> George Dishman wrote: >> >> > The reflection is assumed to be instantaneous. >> >> Is that actually the case? Even if there is an extremely >> tiny delay, it is something that would have been measured >> by hoards of researchers and optical engineers, under a >> vast range of conditions. Yet I'm not aware of what the >> actual case is. I'd say I'm horribly ignorant. > > We can make a rough estimate of the reflection delay. > Think of gold leaf, gold pounded so thin that it is > almost transparent. Light penetrates the surface of a > bar of gold roughly the thickness of gold leaf (on the > order of 0.1 micron) before being coherently re-radiated > (i.e. reflected). A rough estimate of the reflection > delay would therefore be on the order of 3x10^-16 seconds. > > Whatever the figure, it's not relevant to the analysis > of the Sagnac experiment, being unaffected by rotation. > Why do you ask? I asked because it would appear to be of fundamental importance in understanding the behavior of light, and I don't know the answer. My asking has nothing to do with the Sagnac experiment or this thread in general. However, your suggestion of the delay caused by the optical depth of a gold surface isn't at all what I had in mind. I see no reason to assume that any reflection is instantaneous, although all reflections I've personally observed have been indistinguishable from instantaneous. If there *is* a small delay, I would expect it to be material-dependant and well-known. It occurs to me now that a search on "index of reflection" might turn up what I want, as I vaguely recall seeing that term in some list of material properties. (In addition to the familiar "index of refraction".) -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
From: bz on 30 Oct 2005 20:18 HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:3team117852125v5ak8iu4nea0ol440oe0(a)4ax.com: > On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 12:15:52 +0000 (UTC), bz > <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > >>HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>news:1j58m1pahavu0kcjiquh9gutl9o33kn9m5(a)4ax.com: >> >>> On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 01:04:28 +0000 (UTC), bz >>> <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >>> >>>>HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>>>news:l745m1da6q7kfgjvm13oa1hfiu47h01f0u(a)4ax.com: >>>> >>> >>>>>>I showed that in a BaT universe, there is no reason to suppose that >>>>>>there is any limit on velocity. Yet you and I both accept the fact >>>>>>that it is impossible to accelerate a mass to a velocity greater >>>>>>than c. But in a BaT universe, there should NOT be any such limit, >>>>>>so what is going on? >>>>> >>>>> There isn't any limit. It is just too damn hard to achieve. >>>> >>>>Not hard in a BaT universe. Collide Two beams of protons, each going >>>>.6 c and you would have them colliding at a relative velocity of 1.2 >>>>c. >>>> >>>>In an Einsteinian universe, they only collide at 0.882 c. >>> >>> No. >> >>You MUST use Einstein's 'composition of velocities' formula to calculate >>the velocity of one as seen from the other in an Einsteinian universe. >> >>> Their closing speed is still 1.2c. >> >>Correct, but closing speed is NOT the speed they see, it is the speed as >>seen by an observer that is NOT involved in their motion. > > That is merely a postulate, not a proven fact. 1) it is a definition, not a postulate. (the meaning of closing speed). 2) When we are speaking of an Einsteinian universe, we play by those rules. Arguing 'it is not a proven fact' is only allowed re the real universe. We were NOT talking about the real universe, we were talking above about in an Einsteinian universe. >>>>Strangely enough, that is just about what they act like in our >>>>universe too. >>> >>> Who said that? >> >>Experimenters at various labs that have been colliding particles for >>decades. Google is your friend. > > What happens to charged particales in accelerators is an entirely > differnet matter. 1) the results of the collisions are independent of HOW the particles got to the velocities involved. 2) as far as we can tell, everything that happens inside an accelerator is consistent with what happens outside an accelerator. >>>>> Atmospheric Muons do it because they are produced in elastic >>>>> collisions with heavy particles traveling at high speed, possibly >c >>>>> wrt Earth. >>>> >>>>Strange that no one has discovered any traveling faster than c. >>> >>> they discover them regularly. >> >>Who said? Reference? I can't find any. Google is your enemy. > > H. Wilson, 2005. Not peer reviewed. > >>>>That is what I said. >>>> >>>>You have NOT been able to DISprove the theory that all light impinges >>>>on any observer at c. >>> >>> Typo >>> It has never been proved either. >> >>A statement like that shows a lack of a scientific outlook. >> >>It never will be proven. Science can NEVER prove anything. >> >>That is why I said it has never been disproven. On the otherhand, much >>evidence exists that invalidates and disproves BaT. > > I know of no evidence to that effect. > Everything points to the BaTh being absolutely correct. Sagnac, Gratings, muons, lack of mechanism for 'extinction' speeding up c-v photons. > Everything also points to SR being just a subset of LET. A successful theory that is more basic. If there were a LET that effected light, wouldn't it ALSO effect matter? If it effected matter, there would be drag and other effects that are NOT seen. >>>>Now, calculate the frequency from a source going away faster than c. >>>>The frequency would be negative or imaginary. >>> >>> Its light would not reach you. >>> You wouldn't register any doppler shift. >> >>Correct, for an Einsteinian universe. The calculations, however would >>give a value as stated above. >> >>In a BaTty universe, the source receeding faster than c could easily >>have a component emitting photons faster than c in our direction. > > Light moves at c wrt its source...c+v wrt any observer. Picture one of your orbiting stars moving away just a little faster than light, in parts of the orbit, it would be slower than c. >>> It cannot be made to happen anyway. >> >>I agree. In an Einsteinian universe, that is true. > > such doesn't exist. I agree. That indicates we live in an Einsteinian universe. In a BaTty universe, such could exist. -- 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 31 Oct 2005 08:32
In a few quick searches, I found no explanation of the term "index of reflection", although Google turned up a large number of matches. Wikipedia had no entry for it, Eric Weisstein's Treasure Troves of Science had no entry, no dictionary in a multi-dictionary search had an entry. The term *does* seem to mean something, but I doubt that it's what I'm looking for. -- Jeff, in Minneapolis |