De Sitter's experiment and the relative motion of photons with respect to the surface of the star
in [Relativity]
|
From: Androcles on 4 Feb 2010 05:04 "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:cc5lm592ossrljp564c3ijpouesib4qf3i(a)4ax.com... > 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. > As I understand it, it is supposed to fall at one speed in our frame of reference and our clocks slow down to give it more time to reach the ground, proving eric and his colunatics are cocranks in a comoving coframe of inert coreference.
From: tominlaguna on 4 Feb 2010 07:28 On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 12:49:15 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote: [snip]... > >Back to the page folks have been giving you for a decade now: > >http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#moving- >source_tests > >Do you have an argument against Filipas and Fox? Because if you don't, that >establishes that the speed of light - measured in the lab frame from a >MOVING SOURCE - is c, and not c+v as you claim. Eric, I'm quoting below an excerpt (p. 114) from Wallace Kantor's book, "Relativistic Propagation of Light", San Diego, 1976: ===================================== Fox[1], in discussing the quantitative extinction hypothesis, presents the expression (n-1)/lambda as "an experimental fact which is well known in the physical optics." There is in fact no experimental evidence. Thus, in his experiment with Filippas[1], on the decay of gamma ray from a high speed pi meson, Fox[2] (p. 15) observed, in a footnote, that in the absence of experimental data on extinction: "Uncertainty about how to estimate [not measure] the effect for gamma rays delayed publication of the experiment for many months." On the very next page Fox[2] declares: "Finally we have fairly good direct experimental verification of the extinction length for x-rays.(12) The superscript 12 refers back to Fox's own experiment[1] with Filippas, which was delayed in publication for many months by uncertain extimates of the "extinction" length, which later within the space of one page are regarded as direct experimental verification. The specific quantitative hypothesis of "extinction," first wrongly asserted to be "an experimental fact which is well known in physical optics," led to "uncertainty about how to estimate the effect," which uncertain estimates are then quickly declared to be "good direct experimental verification of the extinction length." Such circularly illogical wishful thinking purports that the same experiment has killed two birds with one stone. It has allegedly verified a quantitative "extinction" hypothesis on the unsubstantiated basis of which the postulate of absolutivity is declared, wrongly, to be proved. [1] T. A. Filippas & J. G. Fox, Phys. Rev., 135, B1071 (1964) [2] J. G. Fox, Am. J. Phys., 33, 1 (1965) ===================================== [snip]...
From: PD on 4 Feb 2010 09:45 On Feb 4, 5:49 am, John Kennaugh <J...(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: > PD wrote: > >On Feb 3, 7:17 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > >> On Feb 3, 4:47 am, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> > On Feb 3, 3:55 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > >> > > On Feb 2, 10:49 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > > On Feb 3, 2:22 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > >> > > > > On Feb 2, 5:59 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > > > > On Feb 2, 2:21 pm, John Kennaugh <J...(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> > >> > > > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > > PD wrote: > >> > > > > > > >On Jan 31, 1:23 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > >> > > > > > > >> De Sitter's argument supports many theories that > >> > > > > > > >>consider the speed of > >> > > > > > > >> light to be source independent. Other experiments > >> > > > > > > >>eliminate most of > >> > > > > > > >> them. To eliminate a theory you need to come up with > > >> > > > > > > >> that contradicts a prediction of the theory. Since SR > >> > > > > > > >>and LET share > >> > > > > > > >> the same math you can't eliminate one without also > > >> > > > > > > >> other. > > >> > > > > > > >This isn't quite so. SR makes predictions that LET does not, and > >> > > > > > > >that's because the *physical* foundations are different, > >> > > > > > > >though the > >> > > > > > > >math is common in their *common* experimental domain. > > >> > > > > > > What a load of waffle. > >> > > > > > > SR does not have any *physical* foundations it is a > >> > > > > > >principle theory; a > >> > > > > > > mathematical model based on "empirical foundations" (AE). > >> > > > > > >It is based > >> > > > > > > upon two postulates the first was thought not to apply to > >> > > > > > >EM theory as > >> > > > > > > it was believed that every FoR was unique in that it had > >> > > > > > >a unique speed > >> > > > > > > w.r.t Maxwell's aether. That was shown not to be the case > >> > > > > > >as the sort of > >> > > > > > > experiment expected to show absolute speed dependency > >> > > > > > >failed to do so. > >> > > > > > > The PoR which has its origins with Galileo I think was therefore > >> > > > > > > re-established empirically. The second postulate is a mixture of > > >> > > > > > > i) Maxwell's aether theory - which stated that the speed > > >> > > > > > > independent of the speed of the source because it is > >> > > > > > >constant w.r.t the > >> > > > > > > aether. > > >> > > > > > > ii) The generally held view among Einstein's > >> > > > > > >contemporaries was that the > >> > > > > > > MMX had shown that an observer has always zero speed > >> > > > > > >w.r.t the aether. > >> > > > > > > The second postulate simply describes what an observer > >> > > > > > >stationary w.r.t > >> > > > > > > the aether would observe. Einstein's attempts to convince > >> > > > > > >others that he > >> > > > > > > was on to something *physical* in justification of the > >> > > > > > >postulate in the > >> > > > > > > form of "an aether without the immobility of Lorentz's" > >> > > > > > >(1920 lecture) > >> > > > > > > failed. Einstein's objection to Lorentz's theory was in > >> > > > > > >respect of the > >> > > > > > > theoretical structure i.e. its physical interpretation > >> > > > > > >and he totally > >> > > > > > > failed to come up with an alternative. Physicists decided > >> > > > > > >that a physics > >> > > > > > > theory did not require a physical interpretation and > >> > > > > > >accepted SR without > >> > > > > > > one. As the aether was part of the physical > >> > > > > > >interpretation of Maxwell's > >> > > > > > > theory this decision also allowed physics to disown the > > >> > > > > > > describe a set of equations SR/Lorentz and Maxwell as a "theory". > > >> > > > > > > >Thus, experimental support for our model of the weak > >> > > > > > > >interaction is also support for SR, though not for LET > >> > > > > > > >For example, SR > >> > > > > > > >makes the statement that ANY interaction must be > >> > > > > > > >manifestly covariant, > >> > > > > > > >which includes, for example, the weak interaction. LET > > >> > > > > > > >like that. > > >> > > > > > > If you are talking of the theory as provided by Einstein > >> > > > > > >then his theory > >> > > > > > > made no such claim either. > > >> > > > > > But I did not say that. I said SR, which is a *living* > >> > > > > >theory, not one > >> > > > > > that came complete and in finished form in 1905. > > >> > > > > If you want to play that game we can too. LET as it is known today > >> > > > > has evolved a long way from where it was in 1904. > > >> > > > > > > All you are saying is that such a statement > >> > > > > > > has been added as a part of relativity but has not been > >> > > > > > >added to LET. SR > >> > > > > > > is simply Lorentz's maths without the theory which went with it. > > >> > > > > > That's incorrect. SR as it *presently* exists is a physical theory > >> > > > > > that has a *different* physical basis than LET. > > >> > > > > And what exactly is that physical basis? > > >> > > > LET has an aether which is at rest in a special 'aether' frame .... and > >> > > > movement of objects within that frame uniformly physically compress > >> > > > them and slows all processes .. but if we are co-moving with the > >> > > > object we are unable to measure that compression and slowing because > >> > > > our rulers and clocks are also compressed and slowed. > > >> > > > That is very different to what SR says.- Hide quoted text - > > >> > > > - Show quoted text - > > >> > > The question was what is the physical basis of SR? > > >> > If you are claiming there is no physical basis .. then surely it must > >> > be different to LET's physical basis (which exists). > > >> Someone made the statement, "SR as it *presently* exists is a physical > >> theory that has a *different* physical basis than LET." > > >> As I see it both are based on the speed of light being source > >> independent. > > >No, that is not the present form of SR. > >SR today would survive the photon being found to have finite mass and > >therefore traveling at v<c, > > As v is distance/time and as distance has units based on the speed of > light it would appear to be a circular argument. How do you define c if > it is not the speed of light? John, the standard is a *convention* that is based on the presumption that the speed of light is c. If it would be learned that the photon is massive and that therefore the speed of light is frame-dependent and less than c, then the standard would be altered. In SR, c is the slope of the causal cone. It is not necessarily tied to the speed of light, though everything we know so far indicates that they coincide. > > > > > and therefore whose speed would be frame- > >dependent. > > >> Both agree that all inertial frames will measure the > >> speed of light to be c. Both agree that the time and distance used to > >> make those measurements are frame dependent. > > >> Lorentz's 1904 paper shows how light traveling at c in the ether frame > >> appears to travel at c in all inertial frames due to distortions of > >> time and distance. SR postulates that the speed of light is c in all > >> inertial frames and then explains how time and distance must be > >> distorted for that to be true. > > >> > The physical basis in SR (as I understand) is that time as measured by > >> > observer's clock is not absolute, and 'flows' differently depending on > >> > relative motion of observers. This gives you RoS and from there > >> > length contraction and time dilation. It doesn't further physical > >> > basis any more than does the assumption before relativity that time > >> > flows the same for all observers .. but observation and experiment has > >> > confirmed that time does indeed not flow the same for all observers ... > >> > so that it is physically true is surely good enough :)- Hide quoted text - > > >> > - Show quoted text - > > >> Nature doesn't care how we measure time. RoS is caused by each frame > >> claiming light travels at c in their frame while having a closing > >> speed with other frames. > > -- > John Kennaugh
From: tominlaguna on 4 Feb 2010 10:08 On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 05:45:36 -0800 (PST), train <gehan.ameresekere(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Feb 4, 5:28�pm, tominlag...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >> On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 12:49:15 -0800, eric gisse >> >> <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> [snip]... >> >> >> >> >Back to the page folks have been giving you for a decade now: >> >> >http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.h... >> >source_tests >> >> >Do you have an argument against Filipas and Fox? Because if you don't, that >> >establishes that the speed of light - measured in the lab frame from a >> >MOVING SOURCE - is c, and not c+v as you claim. >> >> Eric, I'm quoting below an excerpt (p. 114) from Wallace Kantor's >> book, �"Relativistic Propagation of Light", San Diego, 1976: >> >> ===================================== >> Fox[1], in discussing the quantitative extinction hypothesis, presents >> the expression (n-1)/lambda as "an experimental fact which is well >> known in the physical optics." �There is in fact no experimental >> evidence. �Thus, in his experiment with Filippas[1], on the decay of >> gamma ray from a high speed pi meson, Fox[2] (p. 15) observed, in a >> footnote, that in the absence of experimental data on extinction: >> >> "Uncertainty about how to estimate [not measure] the effect for gamma >> rays delayed publication of the experiment for many months." >> >> On the very next page Fox[2] declares: >> >> "Finally we have fairly good direct experimental verification �of the >> extinction length for x-rays.(12) >> >> The superscript 12 refers back to Fox's own experiment[1] with >> Filippas, which was delayed in publication for many months by >> uncertain extimates of the "extinction" length, which later within the >> space of one page are regarded as direct �experimental verification. >> The specific quantitative hypothesis of "extinction," first wrongly >> asserted to be "an experimental fact which is well known in physical >> optics," led to "uncertainty about how to estimate the effect," which >> uncertain estimates are then quickly declared to be "good direct >> experimental verification of the extinction length." �Such circularly >> illogical wishful thinking purports that the same experiment has >> killed two birds with one stone. �It has allegedly verified a >> quantitative "extinction" hypothesis on the unsubstantiated basis of >> which the postulate of absolutivity is declared, wrongly, to be >> proved. >> >> [1] �T. A. Filippas & J. G. Fox, Phys. Rev., 135, B1071 (1964) >> [2] �J. G. Fox, Am. J. Phys., 33, 1 (1965) >> ===================================== >> >> [snip]... > >Anything on Filipinas and Fox? My search engine blocks out anti- >relativity stuff since it is not very popular I think. Send an email to my address above (tominlaguna) and I will send you a PDF copy of the paper.
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 4 Feb 2010 11:24
On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 06:49:54 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Feb 4, 1:44�am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >> On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 22:05:12 -0800 (PST), Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> >> wrote: >> >> >> 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. > >No, I didn't. Please reread what I said. This is what you said """"""""" A ball falling from the top of the mast on a ship takes a straight line path in the frame of a ship, but a parabolic path in the frame of the shore -- two different "results" regarding the same events as seen in two different frames. """""""" In future, when you copy something from an article, make sure you understand what it means. Henry Wilson... ........provider of free physics lessons |