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: George Dishman on 16 Sep 2005 09:59 "Jeff Root" <jeff5(a)freemars.org> wrote in message news:1126813371.652244.60690(a)g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > George Dishman replied to Jim Greenfield: > >>> >> He needed 'Jim's Motion Detector'. This consisits of a >>> >> monochromatic light source (set single frequency/wavelength) >>> >> and a filter which will allow ONLY that frequ to pass through, >>> >> the two being constructed in the same frame. Because c'=c+v, >>> >> Arch will know when his motion has changed from that in which >>> >> the Detector was assembled, when the filter blocks >>> >> the beam- the frequency has altered! >>> > >>> > It won't work since all the components move together, >>> > any Doppler shift cancels. Only relative motion produces >>> > a change. >>> >>> But there IS relative motion; the port! >> >> No Jim, you said "This consists of a monochromatic light source >> ... and a filter ... the two being constructed in the same frame." > > George, > > He meant that the monochromatic light source and the > filter were both constructed in the same reference frame. > Like, the same factory. That doesn't make any sense. I think Jim considers that a change of speed would show up as a discrepancy between frequency and wavelength hence could be used to detect motion relative to the aether (or the centre of the universe or 'absolute motion' or something) by seeing an apparent Doppler shift from a source fixed rigidly at some distance from the detector. This will be beyond Jim but I think you will follow, it would work to detect acceleration because the relative speed changes while the light is in flight but no for velocity. In fact if that is what he is suggesting, it wouldn't work for BaT. > What he described is an extremely limited version of a > common radio navigational aid. A simple Doppler speed detector? Could be but what does that prove? SR predicts the same first order Doppler shift and the second order differs but was confirmed by Ives-Stilwell. It beats me what he is on about if not what I guessed. George
From: Jeff Root on 16 Sep 2005 12:27 Continuing where I left off... Jim Greenfield replied to Jeff Root: >> You haven't shown any contradiction-- neither a logical >> contradiction within the theory, nor a contradiction with >> observations. >> >> You are making an extremely elementary argument about an >> extremely elementary part of relativity theory. The sort >> of thing that can be covered in the first day of class. > > Where it should have stopped, had the children not been > required to memorise (read mesmorise) it. Have you ever taken a college-level course, Jim? In any subject? Were you required to memorize the material? Perhaps you took biology or anatomy in college. Both of those do require a significant amount of memorization. Have you ever taken a course at the third or fourth year college level? That is when an introductory course in relativity theory is typically given. Do you consider 20-year-olds to be "children"? Your comment doesn't address the fact that you haven't shown any contradiction in the theory. All you have shown is that you despise it and don't understand it, and you accomplished that years ago. > So what did AE do? Proceded to tell the greatest falsehood on > which the entire future of science has foundered. (c=c+v) You appear to have an almost total lack of ability to judge anything accurately. Nobody is going to believe that science has done anything but rocket exponentially upward over the last century. You blame Albert Einstein for the lie that the speed of light is constant. The fact that the speed of light is constant was known before Einstein was born. It is part of Maxwell's equations, which describe the behavior of electric charges, fields, and forces. If you have a problem with the speed of light being constant, it is the theory of electrodynamics you need to argue against, *not* the theory of relativity. >> > Google on "slot clock"! >> >> This, however, I seem to fail at. The most promising hits >> on "slot clock" were about high-speed communications, and >> most of those were Intel research papers. A slot, in that >> context, is a window of fixed-length time in which one >> machine is allowed to transmit messages to another. No >> dictionary had a definition of the term. George seemed to >> know what you meant, though. Whatever it is wasn't among >> the first thirty Google hits. > > Comes up on Jim Greenfield+slot clocks. Okay. Just more Usenet posts from you. I was really expecting a web page showing something you'd made. Instead, you were just describing an imaginary device which you *could* have made, but didn't. > I have a little gadget which drives by clockwork (constant tick) > a pencil along a straight slot, back and forth at constant > velocity within the slot, (although the return is unneccesary > except to avoid claims of the mechanism being rotated during > operation). Placed motionless upon a sheet of paper, it traces > a straight line "top to botom" on y axis and return. Of course > this is relative, so all y axis hereafter refers to vertical. > Pencil leaving top represents a photon emitted, so a line > produced on a sheet of paper represents the photon's path. Now > we see what happens when the machine is dragged on the x axis > at constant speed (say 3/4 speed of pencil along slot = 3/4c ). The letter "c" in this context represents the constant in Maxwell's equations-- the speed of light. Here you use it to represent the speed of a moving pencil. Maxwell's equations do not predict that a pencil moves at c. You should use some other letter to designate the speed of the pencil. > A longer (diagonal) line is produced on the paper, in the SAME > time interval! This seems trivial, It is. > but it is what is happening to the platform observer (po). Is it happening to the "platform observer"? Or is it something the "platform observer" SAW? As you say in your next sentence. You can't even correctly say what *you* mean, much less explain anyone else's ideas correctly. > The line on the paper translates to what HE SAW against the > background as the carriage went by. Earlier in the same post you said: > He can only know what pa tells him; he can't see inside > the van. So you've changed your mind again-- He *can* see inside? > He has a longer line than the pa on his paper, but the interval > which produced it was the SAME. You may hold the machine, and > pull the paper, with the same result, but that is only > relativity (whether train moves or earth moves). In fact, the time interval for the pencil to go from top to bottom is slightly different for the two observers. Your slot clock thought experiment just *assumes* that it is the same, since the difference is so extremely small at slow speeds. The slot clock merely illustrates the obvious: 1) The path is vertical in the the passenger's frame. 2) The path is diagonal in the ground observer's frame. 3) No relativistic effects are detectable when all the speeds involved are much less than c, and the intervals are not timed with nanosecond precision. >> >> The passenger, stationary wrt the light beam, finds that >> >> the light takes the same amount of time to reach the floor >> >> nomatter how the train is moving relative to the Earth, >> >> since it is always travelling the same path: from the >> >> ceiling to the floor. > > ....and in your geometry, you know that c along the longer > path (diagonal), using the same clocks, MUST give a result > where the two readings for when photon hit floor disagree) > IIIFFF c isn't increased by train motion) I'm very good at geometry. I'm less good at parsing badly-constructed sentences. If c is constant-- as it is in Maxwell's equations-- then the two clocks will measure different intervals for the different paths relative to the two different observers. >> >> An observer stationary wrt the Earth finds that the light >> >> takes longer to reach the floor when the train is moving, >> >> because the light travels a longer path, as you say. >> > >> > Nope! Same amount of time, as the light travels faster on >> > the longer journey >> >> The speed of light has been measured countless times, >> with the light originating from many different kinds of >> sources, many of them moving at very high speed relative >> to the observer. It is always measured to be c. > > NO NO NO NO NO NO NO > It is only "measured to be c" because the standards of > measure (time and length) are automatically > altering/defaulting. What the hell is that supposed to mean? >> The passenger on the train measures the time with his very >> accurate clock, and the observer on the ground measures the >> time with his equally-accurate clock. They each find that >> the time to cover the path is consistent with the distance >> the light travels: a short distance for the passenger, and >> a longer distance for the observer on the ground. Both >> find that the speed of the light is c. > > They are measuring the same photon! Good. That is a useful constraint. > As you have the photon NOT striking after the same interval, > you had better take a refresher from G. > This is contradictory: make out there are two photons emitted > simultaneousli in the same direction (down). How can they NOT > strike the floor after the SAME elapsed interval? One photon or two makes no difference. I don't see your point. Two photons emitted simultaneously in the same direction (down) will of course reach the floor simultaneously. The interval measured by an observer on the ground is longer than the interval measured by the passenger in the moving train, since the path is longer. That is equally true of a single photon or any number of photons. >> That is what is actually observed in real experiments. > > Dream on I admit, particle accelerators don't actually work-- they never have; the Navstar Global Positioning System and GLONASS aren't actually very accurate-- their clocks were made so poorly that they have to be reset every orbit; probes in deep Space are at unknown distances and moving with unknown speeds, so the time it takes for a signal to reach them doesn't tell us anything about the speed of light; and timing of binary stars, under the assumption that the speed of light is constant, shows that they are in square orbits, with the stars speeding up and slowing down as they go from one corner to the next, which makes no sense, so those interpretations are never mentioned. That what you want? >> Clocks are not self-altering. Clocks are not altered by >> moving relative to an observer. What is altered is the >> relationship between the observer and what he is observing. >> When that relationship is altered, the measurements will >> be different. > > Well George says we set the clocks going, go to the pub, > and then come back and read the results. I fear you are > confused as to what he/you understand SR to be, and provide > the thought experiments to back it. You did not point out any difference between what I said above and what George has said. >> You need to read something about relativity. Einstein >> answered ALL of your objections in his little book. It >> is a fairly easy read, for the most part. > > Page one: "If I walk away from one candle, towards another, > c will be the same as measured by me to both". Slam ---> > rubbish bin Your choice. Your loss. Very few people actually need to understand relativity. Those who do are the people who actually use it to do stuff. If you don't want to do anything, you have no need to understand relativity. >> >> Imagine that the train is on a planet orbiting a distant >> >> star. The train is stopped in the station, but the planet >> >> is moving with enormous speed relative to Earth. Using the >> >> SuperMegaHyperTelescope at the top of Mount Everest to view >> >> inside the train, we see the light beam travel from ceiling >> >> to floor on a long diagonal path. >> > >> > Rubbish! As c'=c+v, the light will travel from its SOURCE at c, >> > and I will see the beam vertical in the carriage. This is the >> > same old same! >> >> The railcar is moving at high speed relative the observer >> on Earth. So the beam is travelling on a long, diagonal >> path relative to the Earth. That is what you argued above. >> Why is it now rubbish? > > What makes you think that the car stops after the ray is emitted? Huh??? What are you talking about??? > I may see the ray on an angle, but I KNOW that the source is > still on its original vector, and any illusionary morphing of > the image, is just that; an image, and doesn't give the true > situation. There is no "morphing" of any kind. You are looking directly at what is happening, not at an image. You see the light on a diagonal path, because the distant railcar is moving relative to you. Simple geometry. Exactly as you argued about the railcar when it is moving on Earth. Let me see if I understand your view: The "true situation" is the path of the light relative to the planet that the railcar is on. If the railcar is NOT moving on the track, then the "true" path of the light is vertical and short. If the railcar *is* moving on the track, then the "true" path of the light is diagonal and long. If the railcar is on Earth, moving past you, then the diagonal path is real. If the railcar is on a distant planet, sitting in the station, then the diagonal path is an illusion. Is that correct? > This is no more mind bending than a lensed image- If I > "look" shorter in a curved mirror, I am not rushing out > to buy platform shoes; I am MISTAKEN! In what way are you mistaken? You see a distorted image. So? That does not constitute a mistake of any kind. In my scenario, the path of the light is vertical and short relative to the person in the railcar which is standing at the station on the distant, moving planet. The path of the light is diagonal and long relative to you, looking into the distant railcar from Earth. There is no distortion involved. You are looking directly at what is happening, as if it were right in front of you. There is nothing to be mistaken about. Good stopping point. I might continue this reply later. -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
From: Jeff Root on 16 Sep 2005 13:13 George replied to Jeff: >> George Dishman replied to Jim Greenfield: >> >>>> >> He needed 'Jim's Motion Detector'. This consisits of a >>>> >> monochromatic light source (set single frequency/wavelength) >>>> >> and a filter which will allow ONLY that frequ to pass through, >>>> >> the two being constructed in the same frame. Because c'=c+v, >>>> >> Arch will know when his motion has changed from that in which >>>> >> the Detector was assembled, when the filter blocks >>>> >> the beam- the frequency has altered! >>>> > >>>> > It won't work since all the components move together, >>>> > any Doppler shift cancels. Only relative motion produces >>>> > a change. >>>> >>>> But there IS relative motion; the port! >>> >>> No Jim, you said "This consists of a monochromatic light source >>> ... and a filter ... the two being constructed in the same frame." >> >> George, >> >> He meant that the monochromatic light source and the >> filter were both constructed in the same reference frame. >> Like, the same factory. > > That doesn't make any sense. I think Jim considers > that a change of speed would show up as a discrepancy > between frequency and wavelength hence could be used > to detect motion relative to the aether (or the centre > of the universe or 'absolute motion' or something) by > seeing an apparent Doppler shift from a source fixed > rigidly at some distance from the detector. He's just talking about motion of the detector relative to the light source. It doesn't help his argument at all, and it is absurdly limited in its capabilities, but it would work just fine. He said: | But there IS relative motion; the port! and acceleration | has taken place since (but not continuing). This is a | wooden boat, George. I can point the filter at a source | elsewhere (back in port). THAT is the signal which is | blocked due to the changed motion ref port. You see, I | do have a machine to detect my motion, without MYSELF | seeing out; I just watch the filter, and note when | signals are blocked. The fact that the boat is wooden can only be significant if he has radio waves in mind. So his detector detects radio waves. Whenever the detector is moving relative to the transmitter back at the home port, the detector stops detecting the monochromatic signal. >> What he described is an extremely limited version of a >> common radio navigational aid. > > A simple Doppler speed detector? Yes. > Could be but what does that prove? That Jim thinks a machine which detects his motion is somehow fundamentally different from detecting his motion with his own eyes. I'm curious why he thinks that, but I know he wouldn't be able to explain it. -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
From: George Dishman on 16 Sep 2005 13:59 "Jeff Root" <jeff5(a)freemars.org> wrote in message news:1126890784.397300.260080(a)g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > George replied to Jeff: > >>> George Dishman replied to Jim Greenfield: >>> >>>>> >> He needed 'Jim's Motion Detector'. This consisits of a >>>>> >> monochromatic light source (set single frequency/wavelength) >>>>> >> and a filter which will allow ONLY that frequ to pass through, >>>>> >> the two being constructed in the same frame. Because c'=c+v, >>>>> >> Arch will know when his motion has changed from that in which >>>>> >> the Detector was assembled, when the filter blocks >>>>> >> the beam- the frequency has altered! >>>>> > >>>>> > It won't work since all the components move together, >>>>> > any Doppler shift cancels. Only relative motion produces >>>>> > a change. >>>>> >>>>> But there IS relative motion; the port! >>>> >>>> No Jim, you said "This consists of a monochromatic light source >>>> ... and a filter ... the two being constructed in the same frame." >>> >>> George, >>> >>> He meant that the monochromatic light source and the >>> filter were both constructed in the same reference frame. >>> Like, the same factory. >> >> That doesn't make any sense. I think Jim considers >> that a change of speed would show up as a discrepancy >> between frequency and wavelength hence could be used >> to detect motion relative to the aether (or the centre >> of the universe or 'absolute motion' or something) by >> seeing an apparent Doppler shift from a source fixed >> rigidly at some distance from the detector. > > He's just talking about motion of the detector relative to > the light source. It doesn't help his argument at all, > and it is absurdly limited in its capabilities, but it > would work just fine. He said: > > | But there IS relative motion; the port! and acceleration > | has taken place since (but not continuing). This is a > | wooden boat, George. I can point the filter at a source > | elsewhere (back in port). THAT is the signal which is > | blocked due to the changed motion ref port. You see, I > | do have a machine to detect my motion, without MYSELF > | seeing out; I just watch the filter, and note when > | signals are blocked. > > The fact that the boat is wooden can only be significant > if he has radio waves in mind. But he specifically said "a monochromatic light source". I guess you're right though. > So his detector detects > radio waves. Whenever the detector is moving relative to > the transmitter back at the home port, the detector stops > detecting the monochromatic signal. > >>> What he described is an extremely limited version of a >>> common radio navigational aid. >> >> A simple Doppler speed detector? > > Yes. > >> Could be but what does that prove? > > That Jim thinks a machine which detects his motion is > somehow fundamentally different from detecting his motion > with his own eyes. I'm curious why he thinks that, but I > know he wouldn't be able to explain it. This was the original comment just after the discussion of Galilean relativity: <jgreen(a)seol.net.au> wrote in message news:1126564087.777831.76000(a)g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > However you cut it, there IS a difference to the passenger between the > two scenarios. > Archimedes (?) reckoned that he had no way of telling whether a ship > was moving if he was in the hold, and denied information from outside > (like our passenger). A sudden stop would have told him there was a > change in his velocity, but did the ship hit a reef (was already in > motion, or did it accellerate( assuming he didn't know fore from aft)? > He needed 'Jim's Motion Detector'. This consisits of a monochromatic > light source (set single frequency/wavelength) and a filter which will > allow ONLY that frequ to pass through, the two being constructed in the > same frame. What I want to know is how that fits the original context which was a detector that could distinguish between the ship moving while the port was at rest versus the port moving and the ship at rest with the same relative motion. Jim said "However you cut it, there IS a difference ..." which could be determined by 'Jim's Motion Detector'. In other words he disagrees with Galilean relativity, perhaps having some sort of 'absolute motion' philosophy hence his comments about the centre of the universe. To be honest I think he has just lost the plot, none of this makes any sense. George
From: Jeff Root on 16 Sep 2005 14:01
I looked through the rest of Jim's September 15 reply to me, and there isn't anything worth wasting time on. -- Jeff, in Minneapolis |