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: jgreen on 3 Aug 2005 00:08 bz wrote: > jgreen(a)seol.net.au wrote in news:1122960081.759862.165870 > @g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: > > > Jim Greenfield > > c'=c+v > > > > Jim, what about the c'=c-v photons from sources going away from us? Light is emitted from source at c. It's velocity thereafter is affected by 1) direction of travel of photons ref observer AND source 2) gravity 3) inter-action of photons with intervening matter (eg other photons) > > Do you believe in the 'extinction' explanation for lack of evidence for > c'=c+/-v photons? Where are the experiments, other than arbitrarily preconceived "observations" from pulsars, for ACTUAL light velocity from stationary and moving bodies. Be careful that you are not one who takes it for granted, that they have been done! c+v and c-v photons DO exist; they are seen as blue and red shifted. You will see all sorts of excuses by DHR's not to conduct the defining experiment, which is a good ol' fashioned race between emr emitted from the same distance (roughly) by a stationary and moving source ref the receiver. The reason being, that they fear the result! (I envisage short pulses or "slugs", the redshifting or otherwise of which is only of secondary interest. Arrival times could be logged on a sheet of moving photo paper, with nary a clock to be seen--------just like me adjudicating a footrace without a stopwatch.) > > If so, how do the c'=c-v photons gain velocity so as to get up to c? They don't, and if going too slow, are undetectable/invisable (of course, some may be acellerated by gravity, or vice-versa) > > please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an > infinite set. Mine to, almost. I just sutract 1 (A E Relativity) from infinity. Jim Greenfield c'=c+v > > bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
From: Sue... on 3 Aug 2005 00:43 jgreen(a)seol.net.au wrote: > bz wrote: > > jgreen(a)seol.net.au wrote in news:1122960081.759862.165870 > > @g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: > > > > > Jim Greenfield > > > c'=c+v > > > > > > > Jim, what about the c'=c-v photons from sources going away from us? > > Light is emitted from source at c. << Light is emitted from source at c. >> Are you sure of this? What if light is "dragged" out of the source by all the charges in the universe ? Would that alter the way you visualize light's propagation? Sue... snip
From: bz on 3 Aug 2005 01:16 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:0920f1pfofa1omcth88bbp598mt4riv84a(a)4ax.com: >>>>That would indicate that it can NOT be millions of cycles 'long'. >>>> >>>>I see no reason for it to be more than 1 cycle 'long'. >>> >>> Ah! but what is a 'cycle'? >>> .....a cycle of what? >> >>A cycle of E <---> M energy transfer. Where the E and M fields exchange >>energy. >> >>A rotation of the energy magnitude vector in EM space. >> >>A cycle of the AC voltage in my transmitting antenna. >>A cycle of the AC voltage induced by the passing M field in my receiving >>antenna. > > No that's not the cycle of a single photon. That involves 'group > phasing'. Depends on the transmitter's power. >>A cycle of the current in my loop transmitting antenna [which produces >>an M field in space] >>A cycle of the current induced in my loop receiving antenna by the M >>field of the passing radio wave. > > No bob. Read the question. >>> Ah! but what is a 'cycle'? >>> .....a cycle of what? I answered the question with respect to the topic under discussion. I see no reason for a single photon to be longer than one cycle. -- 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: bz on 3 Aug 2005 01:39 jgreen(a)seol.net.au wrote in news:1123042102.689589.298920 @z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com: > > bz wrote: >> jgreen(a)seol.net.au wrote in news:1122960081.759862.165870 >> @g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: >> >> > Jim Greenfield >> > c'=c+v >> > >> >> Jim, what about the c'=c-v photons from sources going away from us? > > Light is emitted from source at c. > It's velocity thereafter is affected by > 1) direction of travel of photons ref observer AND source > 2) gravity > 3) inter-action of photons with intervening matter (eg other photons) >> >> Do you believe in the 'extinction' explanation for lack of evidence for >> c'=c+/-v photons? > > Where are the experiments, other than arbitrarily preconceived > "observations" from pulsars, for ACTUAL light velocity from stationary > and moving bodies. The aberation of starlight from binary stars. > Be careful that you are not one who takes it for granted, that they > have been done! c+v and c-v photons DO exist; they are seen as blue and > red shifted. There would be a different in stellar position due to aberation. The c+v photon would arrive from a different location in the sky than the c-v photons. c+v photons would come from a location 'closer to the actual location' than c-v photons. The c-v photons are 'older' because it took them longer to get here, so they show up as arriving from where the star used to be. > You will see all sorts of excuses by DHR's not to conduct the defining > experiment, which is a good ol' fashioned race between emr emitted from > the same distance (roughly) by a stationary and moving source ref the > receiver. I suggested use of a high speed rotating disk with fibre optics conducting light to the edge of the disk and launching the light down a time-of-flight apparatus. With a very good and expensive scope, it should be possible to detect a difference as the speed of the disk and the direction of rotation of the disk is varied....if c'=c+/-v is valid. > The reason being, that they fear the result! Why fear what can bring a nobel prize? Scientist are constantly testing Einstein [and other] accepted theories in hopes of finding flaws. > (I envisage short pulses or "slugs", the redshifting or otherwise of > which is only of secondary interest. Arrival times could be logged on a > sheet of moving photo paper, with nary a clock to be seen--------just > like me adjudicating a footrace without a stopwatch.) Google for "streak camera". They exist. >> If so, how do the c'=c-v photons gain velocity so as to get up to c? > > They don't, and if going too slow, are undetectable/invisable > (of course, some may be acellerated by gravity, or vice-versa) Then you must not be a believer in Henri and Androcles explanation for Cepheid variables because their light curves depend on the c+v and c-v photons experiencing "extinction". Extinction, in this case, being their tending to reach c after 5 or so extinction lengths. The extinction length being on the order of a light year or so. Absent extinction, the fast photons from one orbit soon overtake the slow photons from a previous orbit. Once this happens, computer simulations show strange looking light intensity curves. Even neglecting the evidence or lack of evidence from stellar aberation, the lack of a mechanism for rapidly bringing all photons [c+v and c-v] to c would invalidate c'=c+/-v. >> please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is >> an infinite set. > > Mine too, almost. I just subtract 1 (A E Relativity) from infinity. That gives us an unlimited opportunity to learn. I enjoy learning. :) > Jim Greenfield > c'=c+v -- 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: jgreen on 3 Aug 2005 03:54
Sue... wrote: > jgreen(a)seol.net.au wrote: > > bz wrote: > > > jgreen(a)seol.net.au wrote in news:1122960081.759862.165870 > > > @g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: > > > > > > > Jim Greenfield > > > > c'=c+v > > > > > > > > > > Jim, what about the c'=c-v photons from sources going away from us? > > > > Light is emitted from source at c. > > << Light is emitted from source at c. >> > > Are you sure of this? > > What if light is "dragged" out of the source > by all the charges in the universe ? > Would that alter the way you visualize light's propagation? I take on board, and consider it likely, that field propagation is instantaneous (infinitely fast). On the other hand, given the inverse square (for attraction in this case) for distance/force, two isolated atoms colliding at high speed far from significant gravity inspiring material, are unlikely to be significantly influenced by your proposition. I suspect photons will be emitted from the crash site at c (in whatever direction, which may need further thought), and the debris left at the scene will have reduced mass (be different elements, or changed energies/hotter) Push is only a pull in the opposite direction. Bye Jim G c'=c+v > > Sue... > > snip |