De Sitter's experiment and the relative motion of photons with respect to the surface of the star
in [Relativity]
|
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 4 Feb 2010 11:27 On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 10:04:21 -0000, "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_u> wrote: > >"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. ....yeah! and space develops a gradient so they can mumble things like 'space is curved' to try to sound intelligent. Henry Wilson... ........provider of free physics lessons
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 4 Feb 2010 11:29 On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 06:51:24 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Feb 4, 5:23�am, train <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Feb 4, 7:45�am, PD <thedraperfam...(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. >> >> > > A straight path downwards? Or an angled >> > > path ? >> >> > And again, note what I showed you about transformation of velocities. >> > The same law may be in effect, but this does not mean that you should >> > expect the same results. Recall that for bodies with v<c, transforming >> > velocities changes the value of v. But for v=c, the very same >> > transformation law does not change the value of v. >> >> > It is simply improper to expect that if there is a behavior governed >> > by a natural law for a ball, then we should expect the same behavior >> > for a photon, even if governed by the same natural law. >> >> > This is why it is important to know what the LAWS are, not just the >> > superficial behaviors. >> >> So one law for light, another law for non - light objects > >Nope. Same law. Different results. >See AGAIN what I showed you about velocity transformation. >Same law -- different results for light and non-light objects. ....and are the fairies involved again? Henry Wilson... ........provider of free physics lessons
From: Androcles on 4 Feb 2010 12:23 "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:07tlm5lhocaeski61ptpb6b4q1io7penui(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 10:04:21 -0000, "Androcles" > <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_u> > wrote: > >> >>"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. > > ...yeah! and space develops a gradient so they can mumble things like > 'space is > curved' to try to sound intelligent. > Whether light runs curved in straight space or runs straight in curved space matters not on whit; Foucault and Coriolis can manage either. http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Shapiro/Crapiro.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum Awilson's free physics lessons: 1 bottle: "ROTATING FRAMES FEATURE IMAGINARY EFFECTS. DON'T TRY TO USE THEM."-- Wilson 2 bottles: "Don't try to analyse the four mirror interfrometer."-- Wilson. 3 botles: "DON'T TRY TO USE ROTATING FRAMES." -- Wilson 4 boatles: "A rotating frame is not a 'rotating frame'... hahahahhahahahaha!" --Wilson Don't try to drink ozzie Shiraz, it has IMAGINARY EFFECTS.
From: eric gisse on 4 Feb 2010 15:48 ...@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > 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. ....did not actually show that light speeds up, or that it changes speed at all. Would you like to try again? > >>>>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. ....and everything else. > >>>>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. Why 'of course', Henri? You say stupid things all the time with all earnest - why should this time be any different? > > > > Henry Wilson... > > .......provider of free physics lessons
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 4 Feb 2010 17:15
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. hahahha! You see, it's all part of the conspiracy. Einstein must be kept at the top of the intellectual ladder no matter what.... Henry Wilson... ........provider of free physics lessons |