De Sitter's experiment and the relative motion of photons with respect to the surface of the star
in [Relativity]
|
From: Androcles on 30 Jan 2010 06:12 "John Park" <af250(a)FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message news:hk0is3$iaj$1(a)theodyn.ncf.ca... > eric gisse (jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com) writes: > ??? I thought "spectroscopic binary" meant exactly that the > doppler-shifted > lines of the two components were resolved even though there was only a > single telescopic image. > > --John Park It means that only if Lowell resolved the Martian canals. http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast122/lectures/lec10.html http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Resolution 1 : the act or process of resolving: as a : the act of analyzing a complex notion into simpler ones b : the act of answering : solvingc : the act of determining d : the passing of a voice part from a dissonant to a consonant tone or the progression of a chord from dissonance to consonance e : the separating of a chemical compound or mixture into its constituents f (1) : the division of a prosodic element into its component parts (2) : the substitution in Greek or Latin prosody of two short syllables for a long syllable g : the analysis of a vector into two or more vectors of which it is the sum 2 : the subsidence of a pathological state (as inflammation) 3 a : something that is resolved <made a resolution to mend my ways> b : firmness of resolve 4 : a formal expression of opinion, will, or intent voted by an official body or assembled group 5 : the point in a literary work at which the chief dramatic complication is worked out 6 a : the process or capability of making distinguishable the individual parts of an object, closely adjacent optical images, or sources of light b : a measure of the sharpness of an image or of the fineness with which a device (as a video display, printer, or scanner) can produce or record such an image usually expressed as the total number or density of pixels in the image <a resolution of 1200 dots per inch Now resolve the meaning of resolution.
From: John Park on 30 Jan 2010 10:45 eric gisse (jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com) writes: > John Park wrote: > [...] > >> ??? I thought "spectroscopic binary" meant exactly that the >> doppler-shifted lines of the two components were resolved even though >> there was only a single telescopic image. > > You are exactly right and I'm in the wrong here. > > Great. I just made myself look like a retard. Today has been an /excellent > day/. > Considering whom you're arguing against, I think you're still ahead by a factor approaching aleph-null. --John Park
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 30 Jan 2010 16:17 On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 11:47:41 -0800 (PST), Bruce Richmond <bsr3997(a)my-deja.com> wrote: >On Jan 29, 8:13�pm, train <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Jan 29, 1:00�am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >> >> - Show quoted text - > >Do you really think our insignificant little speck of dust determines >the rest state of the Ether throughout the universe? > >De Sitter's argument wasn't about whether SR was correct, it was about >whether the speed of light was source dependent or not. If it was >then it would be possible for one photon to overtake another. That >being the case it would be possible to see the same star at multiple >points in its orbit at the same time. If such a thing is not observed >it is reasonable to assume that the speed of light is *not* source >dependent. De Sitter used the wrong BaTh model....so his refutation is not valid. >The above does not to say that light travels at c relative to the >observer, just that its speed is not determined by the state of motion >of the emitter. Ether theories fit this requirement just fine. >Lorentz Ether Theory results in the exact same math as SR but has >different interpertations of what is happening. LET says that light >travels at c relative to the ether but is also measured to travel at c >by moving observers using their own coordinate system. I find that >explaination makes it easier to rationalize what is happening when >looking at closing speeds. Correct. A consequence of LET is that every observer effectively lies at rest in his own 'personal aether'. Since there is no absolute aether, both theories are hopelessly wrong. >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory Henry Wilson... ........provider of free physics lessons
From: Androcles on 30 Jan 2010 16:37 "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:0889m5l4rmbvcgilkbenl6uqfjfh48opb4(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 11:47:41 -0800 (PST), Bruce Richmond > <bsr3997(a)my-deja.com> > wrote: > >>On Jan 29, 8:13 pm, train <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Jan 29, 1:00 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>> >>> > >>> - Show quoted text - >> >>Do you really think our insignificant little speck of dust determines >>the rest state of the Ether throughout the universe? >> >>De Sitter's argument wasn't about whether SR was correct, it was about >>whether the speed of light was source dependent or not. If it was >>then it would be possible for one photon to overtake another. That >>being the case it would be possible to see the same star at multiple >>points in its orbit at the same time. If such a thing is not observed >>it is reasonable to assume that the speed of light is *not* source >>dependent. > > De Sitter used the wrong BaTh model....so his refutation is not valid. > >>The above does not to say that light travels at c relative to the >>observer, just that its speed is not determined by the state of motion >>of the emitter. Ether theories fit this requirement just fine. >>Lorentz Ether Theory results in the exact same math as SR but has >>different interpertations of what is happening. LET says that light >>travels at c relative to the ether but is also measured to travel at c >>by moving observers using their own coordinate system. I find that >>explaination makes it easier to rationalize what is happening when >>looking at closing speeds. > > Correct. A consequence of LET is that every observer effectively lies at > rest > in his own 'personal aether'. > > Since there is no absolute aether, both theories are hopelessly wrong. > They all want one speed of light only so that they can trust what they see. It's wishing and praying and hoping, they believe in it.
From: eric gisse on 30 Jan 2010 18:10
...@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: [...] > > De Sitter used the wrong BaTh model....so his refutation is not valid. [...] Sometimes I wonder what the point of your posting is. |