De Sitter's experiment and the relative motion of photons with respect to the surface of the star
in [Relativity]
|
From: eric gisse on 4 Feb 2010 02:45 ...@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 22:15:26 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 20:15:00 -0800 (PST), Jerry >>> <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >>> >>>>On Feb 3, 8:57 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 18:45:45 -0800 (PST), PD >>>>> <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >On Feb 3, 7:21 pm, train <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >> OK so instead of a ball, how about a photon emitted downwards from >>>>> >> the mast of the ship? >>>>> >> A parabolic path? Not so. >>>>> >>>>> >In a falling frame, yes! But not in the case you mention. >>>>> >>>>> Hahaha! Got caught there didn't you diaper...Of course it's parabolic. >>>> >>>>Oh, come on, Henri! EVEN ASSUMING CLASSICAL MECHANICS, you would >>>>be dead wrong. >>> >>> Bull. Light speeds up as it falls. >> >>Do you have any evidence for this, or is this just another one of your >>personal feelings masquerading as 'science' ? > > Yes, the Pound-Rebka experiment. Pound-Rebka was a test of gravitational redshift, not whether or not light speeds up as it falls. Do you have ANY EVIDENCE for your claim that light speeds up as it falls? > Why don't you look it up at your library? Why don't you? > >>> It follows a parabola in a moving frame >>> just like any object would. >>> . >>>>What trajectory would be followed by an object >>>>that passes by the Earth at greater than escape velocity? >>> >>> that's totally irrelevant. >> >>Saying 'hyperbola' is exactly two words than your non-answer. Yet you >>choose to go the that path. >> >>Henri, how are people supposed to know that you are as smart as you think >>you are when all you do is say stupid things? > > We are talking about an object falling vertically in one frame . It > follows a parabola in a horizontally moving frame. Diaper didn't want to > admit a light beam does the same. Because it doesn't. Light does not accelerate. I'll pre-comment on your sputtering: you have no evidence that light travels at anything other than c, while I have an abundance of evidence that it does not. > >>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/65d8fac94b6e4d61?dmode=source >> >>"A cepheid curve is similar to that of a star in orbit with yaw between >>about 50 and 80 and ecc around 2-3. there are plenty like that. " > > That's right. Glad to know you stand by the things you say, no matter how stupid they are. Closed orbits do not exist for eccentricities larger than 1. > If you knew anything about physics, ....you would know what 'eccentricity' means. > you would see the > similarity. The attractive force falls off with r^2. Try using your brain > for once if you have one. You might even be able to figure out the YAW > analogy too if you really try. > > > Henry Wilson... > > .......provider of free physics lessons
From: Androcles on 4 Feb 2010 03:09 "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:rjukm5p6728gn9a9mgh7vtq4i781qjg1qv(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 22:05:12 -0800 (PST), Jerry > <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> > wrote: > >>On Feb 3, 11:34 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >>> On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 20:15:00 -0800 (PST), Jerry >>> <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >On Feb 3, 8:57 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >>> >> On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 18:45:45 -0800 (PST), PD >>> >> <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >> >On Feb 3, 7:21 pm, train <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >> >> OK so instead of a ball, how about a photon emitted downwards from >>> >> >> the >>> >> >> mast of the ship? >>> >> >> A parabolic path? Not so. >>> >>> >> >In a falling frame, yes! But not in the case you mention. >>> >>> >> Hahaha! Got caught there didn't you diaper...Of course it's >>> >> parabolic. >>> >>> >Oh, come on, Henri! EVEN ASSUMING CLASSICAL MECHANICS, you would >>> >be dead wrong. >>> >>> Bull. Light speeds up as it falls. It follows a parabola in a moving >>> frame just >>> like any object would. >>> . >>> >>> >What trajectory would be followed by an object >>> >that passes by the Earth at greater than escape velocity? >>> >>> that's totally irrelevant. >> >>HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA >>HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA >>HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA >>HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA >>HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA >>HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA >>HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA > > we were talking about an object falling vertically downward. > Diaper said it follows a parabolic path in a horizontally moving frame. > Do you have any objections? > No objections, I'm just enjoying the tag team kook fight. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipse eccentricity < 0 ? eccentricity = 0 (circle) eccentricity > 0 and eccentricity < 1 (ellipse) eccentricity = 1 ? eccentricity > 1 ? An Awilson's Wobbly Worbits Wedge-on Wotsit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypotrochoid
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 4 Feb 2010 04:38 On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 08:09:16 -0000, "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_u> wrote: > >"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message >news:rjukm5p6728gn9a9mgh7vtq4i781qjg1qv(a)4ax.com... >> On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 22:05:12 -0800 (PST), Jerry >> <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> >>>> >What trajectory would be followed by an object >>>> >that passes by the Earth at greater than escape velocity? >>>> >>>> that's totally irrelevant. >>> >>>HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA >>>HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA >>>HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA >>>HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA >>>HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA >>>HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA >>>HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA >> >> we were talking about an object falling vertically downward. >> Diaper said it follows a parabolic path in a horizontally moving frame. >> Do you have any objections? >> >No objections, I'm just enjoying the tag team kook fight. > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipse > >eccentricity < 0 ? >eccentricity = 0 (circle) >eccentricity > 0 and eccentricity < 1 (ellipse) >eccentricity = 1 ? >eccentricity > 1 ? > >An Awilson's Wobbly Worbits Wedge-on Wotsit: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypotrochoid I haven't seen a star with a long pole on it. Henry Wilson... ........provider of free physics lessons
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 4 Feb 2010 04:40 On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 23:45:47 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote: >..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > >> On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 22:15:26 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >>>>>Oh, come on, Henri! EVEN ASSUMING CLASSICAL MECHANICS, you would >>>>>be dead wrong. >>>> >>>> Bull. Light speeds up as it falls. >>> >>>Do you have any evidence for this, or is this just another one of your >>>personal feelings masquerading as 'science' ? >> >> Yes, the Pound-Rebka experiment. > >Pound-Rebka was a test of gravitational redshift, not whether or not light >speeds up as it falls. > >Do you have ANY EVIDENCE for your claim that light speeds up as it falls? Yes, the Pound-Rebka experiment. >>>Henri, how are people supposed to know that you are as smart as you think >>>you are when all you do is say stupid things? >> >> We are talking about an object falling vertically in one frame . It >> follows a parabola in a horizontally moving frame. Diaper didn't want to >> admit a light beam does the same. > >Because it doesn't. Light does not accelerate. > >I'll pre-comment on your sputtering: you have no evidence that light travels >at anything other than c, while I have an abundance of evidence that it does >not. Light travels at c wrt its source. >>>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/65d8fac94b6e4d61?dmode=source >>> >>>"A cepheid curve is similar to that of a star in orbit with yaw between >>>about 50 and 80 and ecc around 2-3. there are plenty like that. " >> >> That's right. > >Glad to know you stand by the things you say, no matter how stupid they are. > >Closed orbits do not exist for eccentricities larger than 1 0.2-0.3 of course. Henry Wilson... ........provider of free physics lessons
From: Androcles on 4 Feb 2010 04:49
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:ja5lm5h8kgt5drqsmiua040r1gg06obb1o(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 08:09:16 -0000, "Androcles" > <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_u> > wrote: > >> >>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message >>news:rjukm5p6728gn9a9mgh7vtq4i781qjg1qv(a)4ax.com... >>> On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 22:05:12 -0800 (PST), Jerry >>> <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> > >>>>> >What trajectory would be followed by an object >>>>> >that passes by the Earth at greater than escape velocity? >>>>> >>>>> that's totally irrelevant. >>>> >>>>HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA >>>>HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA >>>>HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA >>>>HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA >>>>HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA >>>>HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA >>>>HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA >>> >>> we were talking about an object falling vertically downward. >>> Diaper said it follows a parabolic path in a horizontally moving frame. >>> Do you have any objections? >>> >>No objections, I'm just enjoying the tag team kook fight. >> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipse >> >>eccentricity < 0 ? >>eccentricity = 0 (circle) >>eccentricity > 0 and eccentricity < 1 (ellipse) >>eccentricity = 1 ? >>eccentricity > 1 ? >> >>An Awilson's Wobbly Worbits Wedge-on Wotsit: >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypotrochoid > > I haven't seen a star with a long pole on it. Here's one, drawn by someone that knows what he's doing. http://www.typnet.net/Animations/BarycenterBoogie.htm |