Bigbang, a fantasy?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 10 Jan 2010 19:44 "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:9askk551lu6gs9ac1okfsh9lgvv7foe30o(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 10:13:57 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> > wrote: > >>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message >>news:j4gkk5hrj3j51tpmffpn74s9qbjej20nr5(a)4ax.com... >>> I'll repeat. An accelerating source emits a photon in the forward >>> directio. The >>> photon...or wave or whatever....takes a finite time to be emitted. >>> ....so the back end is moving faster than te front end...very slightly >>> but >>> enough to give it the same kind of 'bunching' that produces our >>> brigthness. >>> curves. >> >>So the back end of the photon will catch up with the front end and >>overtake >>it. BAHAHAHAHAHA. > > No I didn't want to confuse Andro too much with this complication.....but > this > is indeed very interesting. > According to my 'rubber photon' or 'coiled spring' models, there is a > limit to > how much a photon can be compressed but a much higher limit to how much it > can > extend....so the back end never actually overtakes the front end. > > this means a lot more redshift than blue....,which is what Hubble saw. So (in your model) is it the wavelength, or frequency, or both of a photon is determined by how long the photon is? Just how long IS a photon?
From: Androcles on 10 Jan 2010 21:26 "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:hrfkk55lnk6cu9tj5nnq7n8d4878kvp3qa(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 11:53:16 -0000, "Androcles" > <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_r> > wrote: > >> >>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message >>news:8e8jk5lqk0mm5etmhhormveu524571t4th(a)4ax.com... >>> On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 03:49:02 -0000, "Androcles" >>> <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_r> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message >>>>news:qqfik5d3tnpf4pmpd7qnekin4snua1c9jk(a)4ax.com... >>>>> On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 02:03:27 -0000, "Androcles" >>> >>>>>> >>>>>>So if you assume light accelerates by gravity then it accelerates >>>>>>by gravity, is that what you are saying? >>>>> >>>>> I and lots of other people say it accelerates with gravity like >>>>> anything >>>>> else. >>>>> Only Einsteinians and Andro the Anti say it doesn't. >>>> >>>>So if you assume light accelerates by gravity then it accelerates >>>>by gravity, is that what you are saying? >>> >>> I'm saying light accelerates by gravity because that's what I'm have >>> said >>> because that's what happens in spite of the fact that Einstein said it >>> didn't >>> even though you seem to think I said what Einstein claimed and you don't >>> usually agree with him unless you want to pin something on me that is >>> not >>> what >>> I said at all. >> >>I must have have misunderstood, I could swear you said >>"Assume a photon accelerates as it falls to earth from height h. Let it >>initially move at c relative to earth....Assume the acceleration due to >>gravity is constant". >> >>Assume Wilson has a bicycle that he pedals at 99% c with no >>parachute to slow him down. >>Assume Wilson is an idiot that falls to Earth from height 3000 feet. >>Therefore Wilson has a dead bicycle with a buckled wheel. >>As it is he's just a brain-dead idiot. >> >>So if you assume light accelerates by gravity then it accelerates >>by gravity, is that what you are saying? >> >> >> >>>>>>Oh I see. In BaThwater you have negative mass to cancel out >>>>>>positive mass, is that what you are saying? >>>>>>Have you tried cyan wine to cancel the cheap plonk you are guzzling? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> It makes no difference whether or not light possesses mass. >>>>>> >>>>>>Why do I need to consider a willusional wobject (mass m)*, then? >>>>> >>>>> ...is the cold keeping you awake? >>>> >>>>Nah, its bloody hot in my living room. Glad I have a new boiler, >>>>I'll turn the heat down. >>> >>> Bloody hot here too. ....and all the windows are open.. >> >>No A/C? I kept the windows closed when I lived in Florida to >>stop the heat coming in. > > Nah, don't really need an air conditioner. It's more a humidity problem > here at > the moment...tropical cyclone feeding moist air down our way....but no > bloody > rain, which we need badly. There are floods 300kms away and bushfires in > the > West. Ice age in N. hemisphere. The Earth is stuffed. > Sage and onion?
From: Inertial on 10 Jan 2010 22:08 "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:li2lk5dh4unv4b4fp22d9684nl61der8k9(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 11:44:05 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> > wrote: > >> >>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message >>news:9askk551lu6gs9ac1okfsh9lgvv7foe30o(a)4ax.com... >>> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 10:13:57 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> >>> wrote: > >>> >>> No I didn't want to confuse Andro too much with this >>> complication.....but >>> this >>> is indeed very interesting. >>> According to my 'rubber photon' or 'coiled spring' models, there is a >>> limit to >>> how much a photon can be compressed but a much higher limit to how much >>> it >>> can >>> extend....so the back end never actually overtakes the front end. >>> >>> this means a lot more redshift than blue....,which is what Hubble saw. >> >>So (in your model) is it the wavelength, or frequency, or both of a photon >>is determined by how long the photon is? Just how long IS a photon? > > can't you even work that out? I'm talking about your model .. you work it out So (in your model) is it the wavelength, or frequency, or both of a photon that is determined by how long the photon is? Just how long IS a photon?
From: Inertial on 10 Jan 2010 23:23 "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:5m7lk5t671nq4tqoa292a4javh7lvns1jj(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 14:08:08 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> > wrote: > >> >>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message >>news:li2lk5dh4unv4b4fp22d9684nl61der8k9(a)4ax.com... >>> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 11:44:05 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message >>>>news:9askk551lu6gs9ac1okfsh9lgvv7foe30o(a)4ax.com... >>>>> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 10:13:57 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> >>>>> wrote: >>> >>>>> >>>>> No I didn't want to confuse Andro too much with this >>>>> complication.....but >>>>> this >>>>> is indeed very interesting. >>>>> According to my 'rubber photon' or 'coiled spring' models, there is a >>>>> limit to >>>>> how much a photon can be compressed but a much higher limit to how >>>>> much >>>>> it >>>>> can >>>>> extend....so the back end never actually overtakes the front end. >>>>> >>>>> this means a lot more redshift than blue....,which is what Hubble saw. >>>> >>>>So (in your model) is it the wavelength, or frequency, or both of a >>>>photon >>>>is determined by how long the photon is? Just how long IS a photon? >>> >>> can't you even work that out? >> >>I'm talking about your model .. you work it out >> >>So (in your model) is it the wavelength, or frequency, or both of a photon >>that is determined by how long the photon is? Just how long IS a photon? > > I just practically gave you the answer and you still can't work it out. Why should I do your work for you. > Do you know anything about basic physics? More than you ever will So (in your model) is it the wavelength, or frequency, or both of a photon that is determined by how long the photon is?
From: John Kennaugh on 11 Jan 2010 16:55
Androcles wrote: > >"John Kennaugh" <JKNG(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message >news:RMpWrUI66JSLFwV$@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk... >> Androcles wrote: >>> >>>"John Kennaugh" <JKNG(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message > >>> >>>> Note that emission theory predicts the same transverse Doppler as SR. >>> >>>Note that emission theory predicts NO transverse Doppler, the >>>opposite of SR. >> >> Wrong - see below. >> >>> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img110.gif >>>That's as far blueshifted as you can get and proof Einstein was a >>>ranting lunatic. It is also proof that he knew what a vector is, but >>>only when it suited him. >>>Where do you get these outlandish ideas from? >> >> Simple mathematics. >> >> X---->v >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Y T >> >> >> In order for light leaving X to hit T it has to set out in the direction >> XY where YT = vt. The photons have a component of velocity c in the >> direction XY and a component v in the X direction such that the >> resultant is in the direction XT. What you have is a velocity triangle >> XY = c YT = v so >> >> the velocity X-T = Sqr( c^2 - v^2) by pythag >> So Sqr( c^2 - v^2) = F' x L >> But c = Fo x L (L = wavelength) >> So F'/Fo = Sqr( c^2 - v^2)/c = Sqr(1 - v^2/c^2) >> >ANY angle is NOT transverse. > >> If X is orbiting T it is always orthogonal and the light reaching T is >> not travelling at c so is Doppler shifted. None of that exotic "time >> dilation" nonsense but genuine Doppler shift the result of a simple >> velocity triangle. > >Bwhahahahahaha! >Too funny! >X emits (fires) 2 bullets each second. >T sees (is hit by) 1 bullet each second (red shift) or 4 bullets each >second (blue shift). >After one hour X has fired 7,200 bullets and 3600 have hit T (red shift) >or 14,400 bullets have hit T (blue shift). What happened to the missing >bullets (red shift) or where do the extra bullets come from (blue shift)? > >The tick fairy has gotten to you. Rework your logic. No you rework yours. Number of bullets does not equate to red shift or blue shift. Number of bullets equates to intensity not the energy (colour) of the individual bullets. >> It is possibly easier to see if observed from The IFoR in which the >> light is emitted in which, according to emission theory, light travels >> every which way at c >> >> O >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Y T >> v<--- >> >> Light leaves O when O is orthogonal w.r.t T but when it reaches T, T is >> at Y and has a component of motion away from X which will result in >> lower frequency. Of course if the source is in orbit around Y it is >> constantly changing its IFoR and will no longer be in the IFoR of O (the >> IFor in which the light was emitted) when light reaches Y. >> >> Waldron's ballistic theory gives a slightly different result as his >> theory is basically a photon theory rather than a wave theory. He >> calculates the same change of velocity as above but uses the change in >> velocity to calculate the energy of the photon reaching T. He >> calculates the Transverse Doppler shift as >> >> f'/fo = (1 - v^2/(2.c^2)) >> >> which differs only in forth order v/c term. >> >This Waldon guy is a fruit cake, bullets do not vanish into or >appear from thin aether. > >Note that emission theory predicts NO transverse Doppler, the >opposite of SR. Wrong! You may have dedicated yourself to showing that light speed is source dependent but even if you succeed that is the *basis* of a theory not a theory in its own right. Ritz's theory was produced a century ago and is flawed by subsequent experiment - not that it matters it was totally ignored. Waldron is the only person I know of who has made a serious attempt since and you dismiss him without studying his theory. That makes you as much of a narrow minded bigot at the relativists you attack. Waldron's theory is a photon theory. Frequency is simply related to the energy of a photon by Planck's constant. O' O | | | | | X---->v You are at X orthogonal w.r.t O. You fire at a target at O. If you are moving at v and you aim *at* O you will miss as your bullets have a component v. You have to aim at a point O'. Now if v is equal to the muzzle velocity Vm you cannot hit O at all no matter which way you point the gun. It is more obvious in the FoR of X v<---O | | | | | X OK let us assume v is less than the muzzle velocity and that X is sending out an omni-directional array of bullets when he is exactly orthogonal w.r.t O which bullet hits O? v<---O' O X the bullet hits O at O' if O-O' = vt and X-O' = Vm.t. Where Vm is the muzzle velocity. What is the kinetic energy involved w.r.t the collision between the bullet and O? It is dependent on v and drops to zero as v approaches Vm It is far more difficult to imagine - but doesn't change anything if you change it to the FoR of O and have X orbiting O i.e. you are on a roundabout taking pot shots at the target in the middle. It doesn't change anything because what happens to X *after* the bullet has left does not affect the bullet so if X changes its direction i.e. follows a circular path around O it does not alter the fact that the kinetic energy involved in the collision IS velocity dependent in the orthogonal case. Energy is equivalent to frequency. -- John Kennaugh |