De Sitter's experiment and the relative motion of photons with respect to the surface of the star
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 8 Feb 2010 10:58 On Feb 7, 11:08 am, John Kennaugh <J...(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: > PD wrote: > >On Feb 6, 8:45 am, John Kennaugh <J...(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> > >wrote: > >> Bruce Richmond wrote: > >> >On Feb 5, 6:54 am, John Kennaugh <J...(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> > >> >wrote: > >> >> Bruce Richmond wrote: > >> >> >On Feb 4, 9:46 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Feb 4, 6:16 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > >> >> >> > On Feb 3, 9:42 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> >> >> > > On Feb 3, 7:17 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > >> >> [snip] > > >> >> >> > > > > > 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 > > >> >> >> > > > 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, and therefore whose speed would > >> >> >> > >be frame- > >> >> >> > > dependent. > > >> >> >> > So you are saying that it wouldn't matter if the second postulate was > >> >> >> > wrong? Wow, SR certainly has changed. > > >> >> >> That's right. SR has been examined considerably since the days that > >> >> >> those postulates have been put forward, and it has been found to have > >> >> >> a much deeper basis than what Einstein originally built it upon. > > >> >> >> That's ok. There's plenty of material available with which to catch > >> >> >> up. > > >> >> >I have no problem with expanding a theory to take in new developments, > >> >> >but when you change the basis of a theory you no longer have the same > >> >> >theory. In his 1905 paper Einstein wrote, "that light is always > >> >> >propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is > >> >> >independent of the state of motion of the emitting body." IOW c is > >> >> >the speed of light by definition. So there is no way for the speed of > >> >> >light in empty space to be anything but c. If you construct a > >> >> >coordinate system as described in SR and measure the speed of light to > >> >> >be anything but c you had better look for your mistake because it > >> >> >can't happen if you did everything correctly. > > >> >> >The quote above supports my previous claim that the source > >> >> >independence of the speed of light is a basic claim of SR. The same > >> >> >can be said for LET. The claim that new developments support SR but > >> >> >not LET is pure BS. SR started as "ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING > >> >> >BODIES". If that title didn't prevent it from being exteded to other > >> >> >areas then there is no reason to think that such a restriction should > >> >> >apply to LET. > > >> >> Maxwell's wave in aether theory made the following predictions: > > >> >> 1/ That because the speed of light is a constant w.r.t the aether the > >> >> light speed is source independent. > >> >> 2/ That because the speed of light is a constant w.r.t the aether an > >> >> observers speed relative to the aether would add to the speed of light. > >> >> 3/ That action at a distance force between charge is transferred via an > >> >> altered state ("stress") in the aether. > > >> >> The MMX was intended to show 2 and the null result was a puzzle. Lorentz > >> >> took up an idea from Fitzgerald of length contraction but showed why > >> >> length would contract according to Maxwell's aether. Essentially he > >> >> assumed that a solid consisted of a matrix of charged particles and that > >> >> its dimensions therefore depends upon action at a distance force between > >> >> those charges. If the action at a distance force is transferred via the > >> >> aether in accordance with 3 and the aether is in motion the equilibrium > >> >> position of the charges will be different compared to if the aether were > >> >> stationary. He showed mathematically that length contraction in the > >> >> direction of motion would result. In affect the MMX had been designed > >> >> ignoring one property of the very theory it was testing. When that was > >> >> taken into account it appears the MMX was incapable of detecting what it > >> >> was designed to detect. SR is based on the assumption that the MMX was > >> >> capable of measuring our speed w.r.t the aether and always got zero i.e. > >> >> that an observer is always stationary w.r.t the aether which is what the > >> >> second postulate is describing. > > >> >I don't think so. SR was based on the speed of light being a natural > >> >constant shared between frames. It extended the Principle of > >> >Relativity to electromagnetic phenomena. To do so the speed of light > >> >could not be attached to just a single frame. > > >> You are confusing 2 things. The PoR simply states that the same laws > >> shall apply to all FoR this means firstly that the speed of light > >> measured between a stationary source and a stationary detector must be > >> the same constant in all FoR. Secondly that the relationship (law) > >> between the speed of the source and the speed of light must be the same > >> in all FoR. > >> That law need not be as in SR "the speed is always c" it could be "thed > >> speed is always c+v". > > >I think the claim is that Maxwell's laws are the same in all FoR. > > That won't do. It is ambiguous. Why is it ambiguous? They apply in frame A. They also apply in the same form in frame B. What is ambiguous about that? > It was assumed that Maxwell's equations > were describing light travelling in the aether. It was assumed by who? It certainly is not assumed now and it wasn't assumed 30 years after he put those laws forward. And what do the extraneous assumptions have to do with whether Maxwell's equations apply in the same form in all inertial frames? The principle of relativity is simple and straightforward, and it resists the need to drag extraneous assumptions in. > It was therefore assumed > that c was the speed w.r.t the aether and because of that the speed of > the source would have no affect. The MMX wasn't trying to test Maxwell's > equations it was trying to measure the speed of the earth w.r.t the > aether. Once you assume there is no aether, you have to look for a new > reference for c. The obvious choice would be the source as there is no > possible causality whereby its speed can be affected by who might > observe it at some future date. Maxwell's equations work just as well > with the source as a reference for c. Only experiment could determine > whether that is right or wrong and there was no experimental evidence > guiding Albert in 1905 so his thinking must have managed without. > > " Light is a propagated wave propagated by a medium called the Aether. > The velocity of a wave is a function of the medium which propagates it > and its velocity can only be effected by the source if the movement of > the source causes movement of the medium. Aether drag experiments, > passing light close to heavy rotating flywheels has shown that they had > no effect on the light passing close to them hence the speed of light > cannot be effected by the speed of the source. > > Although the speed of light might be expected to vary with the speed > of the observer Michelson and Morley had shown that not to be the case > so it is a strange but indisputable fact that the velocity of light is > constant independent of the velocity of the source or the observer." > Einstein-Infeld: The Evolution of Physics. 1938. > > Text books try to make it look sophisticated and have to avoid > implications that aether is part of the thinking as they have to toe the > line and declare the aether a discredited concept. They even perpetuate > the lie that Einstein came up with a theory which got rid of the aether. > The removal of the aether from physics had nothing to do with Einstein, > was not the result of experiment nor theoretical wizardry but was > removed by an arbitrary decision that physical interpretation or > "theoretical structure" is an unnecessary part of physics theory. > > -- > John Kennaugh "Maxwells Equations are a mantra used by scientists to impress > their maiden aunts. However, they are not used in anger". Ivor Catt
From: Androcles on 8 Feb 2010 11:21 "PD" <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:a0619035-c5b8-418b-948f-32b27b307789(a)1g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... On Feb 7, 11:08 am, John Kennaugh <J...(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: > PD wrote: > >On Feb 6, 8:45 am, John Kennaugh <J...(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> > >wrote: > >> Bruce Richmond wrote: > >> >On Feb 5, 6:54 am, John Kennaugh <J...(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> > >> >wrote: > >> >> Bruce Richmond wrote: > >> >> >On Feb 4, 9:46 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Feb 4, 6:16 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > >> >> >> > On Feb 3, 9:42 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> >> >> > > On Feb 3, 7:17 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> > >> >> >> > > wrote: > > >> >> [snip] > > >> >> >> > > > > > 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 > > >> >> >> > > > 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, and therefore whose speed would > >> >> >> > >be frame- > >> >> >> > > dependent. > > >> >> >> > So you are saying that it wouldn't matter if the second > >> >> >> > postulate was > >> >> >> > wrong? Wow, SR certainly has changed. > > >> >> >> That's right. SR has been examined considerably since the days > >> >> >> that > >> >> >> those postulates have been put forward, and it has been found to > >> >> >> have > >> >> >> a much deeper basis than what Einstein originally built it upon. > > >> >> >> That's ok. There's plenty of material available with which to > >> >> >> catch > >> >> >> up. > > >> >> >I have no problem with expanding a theory to take in new > >> >> >developments, > >> >> >but when you change the basis of a theory you no longer have the > >> >> >same > >> >> >theory. In his 1905 paper Einstein wrote, "that light is always > >> >> >propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is > >> >> >independent of the state of motion of the emitting body." IOW c is > >> >> >the speed of light by definition. So there is no way for the speed > >> >> >of > >> >> >light in empty space to be anything but c. If you construct a > >> >> >coordinate system as described in SR and measure the speed of light > >> >> >to > >> >> >be anything but c you had better look for your mistake because it > >> >> >can't happen if you did everything correctly. > > >> >> >The quote above supports my previous claim that the source > >> >> >independence of the speed of light is a basic claim of SR. The same > >> >> >can be said for LET. The claim that new developments support SR but > >> >> >not LET is pure BS. SR started as "ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING > >> >> >BODIES". If that title didn't prevent it from being exteded to > >> >> >other > >> >> >areas then there is no reason to think that such a restriction > >> >> >should > >> >> >apply to LET. > > >> >> Maxwell's wave in aether theory made the following predictions: > > >> >> 1/ That because the speed of light is a constant w.r.t the aether > >> >> the > >> >> light speed is source independent. > >> >> 2/ That because the speed of light is a constant w.r.t the aether an > >> >> observers speed relative to the aether would add to the speed of > >> >> light. > >> >> 3/ That action at a distance force between charge is transferred via > >> >> an > >> >> altered state ("stress") in the aether. > > >> >> The MMX was intended to show 2 and the null result was a puzzle. > >> >> Lorentz > >> >> took up an idea from Fitzgerald of length contraction but showed why > >> >> length would contract according to Maxwell's aether. Essentially he > >> >> assumed that a solid consisted of a matrix of charged particles and > >> >> that > >> >> its dimensions therefore depends upon action at a distance force > >> >> between > >> >> those charges. If the action at a distance force is transferred via > >> >> the > >> >> aether in accordance with 3 and the aether is in motion the > >> >> equilibrium > >> >> position of the charges will be different compared to if the aether > >> >> were > >> >> stationary. He showed mathematically that length contraction in the > >> >> direction of motion would result. In affect the MMX had been > >> >> designed > >> >> ignoring one property of the very theory it was testing. When that > >> >> was > >> >> taken into account it appears the MMX was incapable of detecting > >> >> what it > >> >> was designed to detect. SR is based on the assumption that the MMX > >> >> was > >> >> capable of measuring our speed w.r.t the aether and always got zero > >> >> i.e. > >> >> that an observer is always stationary w.r.t the aether which is what > >> >> the > >> >> second postulate is describing. > > >> >I don't think so. SR was based on the speed of light being a natural > >> >constant shared between frames. It extended the Principle of > >> >Relativity to electromagnetic phenomena. To do so the speed of light > >> >could not be attached to just a single frame. > > >> You are confusing 2 things. The PoR simply states that the same laws > >> shall apply to all FoR this means firstly that the speed of light > >> measured between a stationary source and a stationary detector must be > >> the same constant in all FoR. Secondly that the relationship (law) > >> between the speed of the source and the speed of light must be the same > >> in all FoR. > >> That law need not be as in SR "the speed is always c" it could be "thed > >> speed is always c+v". > > >I think the claim is that Maxwell's laws are the same in all FoR. > > That won't do. It is ambiguous. Why is it ambiguous? ========================== You are not capable of thinking, you are a bigot.
From: PD on 9 Feb 2010 11:19 On Feb 9, 4:16 am, John Kennaugh <J...(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: > PD wrote: > >On Feb 7, 11:08 am, John Kennaugh <J...(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> > >wrote: > >> PD wrote: > >> >On Feb 6, 8:45 am, John Kennaugh <J...(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> > >> >wrote: > >> >> Bruce Richmond wrote: > > [bring back the art of sipping] > > > > > > >> >> >I don't think so. SR was based on the speed of light being a natural > >> >> >constant shared between frames. It extended the Principle of > >> >> >Relativity to electromagnetic phenomena. To do so the speed of light > >> >> >could not be attached to just a single frame. > > >> >> You are confusing 2 things. The PoR simply states that the same laws > >> >> shall apply to all FoR this means firstly that the speed of light > >> >> measured between a stationary source and a stationary detector must be > >> >> the same constant in all FoR. Secondly that the relationship (law) > >> >> between the speed of the source and the speed of light must be the same > >> >> in all FoR. > >> >> That law need not be as in SR "the speed is always c" it could be "thed > >> >> speed is always c+v". > > >> >I think the claim is that Maxwell's laws are the same in all FoR. > > >> That won't do. It is ambiguous. > > >Why is it ambiguous? > > Why don't you read the post which answered that question > > > > >> It was assumed that Maxwell's equations > >> were describing light travelling in the aether. > > >It was assumed by who? > > RTFP My post answered that question also. What do you think the > assumption was behind the MMX? > > >It certainly is not assumed now and it wasn't > >assumed 30 years after he put those laws forward. > > >And what do the extraneous assumptions have to do with whether > >Maxwell's equations apply in the same form in all inertial frames? > > RTFP > > > > >The principle of relativity is simple and straightforward, > > and has nothing to say as to what the laws of physic ARE only that they > are the SAME in every FoR. That's exactly right. And so the validity of Maxwell's equations is determined by its own experimental tests, which by the way do not rest on whether vortices in the aether become established. :) > > > > >and it > >resists the need to drag extraneous assumptions in. > > >> It was therefore assumed > >> that c was the speed w.r.t the aether and because of that the speed of > >> the source would have no affect. The MMX wasn't trying to test Maxwell's > >> equations it was trying to measure the speed of the earth w.r.t the > >> aether. Once you assume there is no aether, you have to look for a new > >> reference for c. The obvious choice would be the source as there is no > >> possible causality whereby its speed can be affected by who might > >> observe it at some future date. Maxwell's equations work just as well > >> with the source as a reference for c. Only experiment could determine > >> whether that is right or wrong and there was no experimental evidence > >> guiding Albert in 1905 so his thinking must have managed without. > > >> " Light is a propagated wave propagated by a medium called the Aether. > >> The velocity of a wave is a function of the medium which propagates it > >> and its velocity can only be effected by the source if the movement of > >> the source causes movement of the medium. Aether drag experiments, > >> passing light close to heavy rotating flywheels has shown that they had > >> no effect on the light passing close to them hence the speed of light > >> cannot be effected by the speed of the source. > > >> Although the speed of light might be expected to vary with the speed > >> of the observer Michelson and Morley had shown that not to be the case > >> so it is a strange but indisputable fact that the velocity of light is > >> constant independent of the velocity of the source or the observer." > >> Einstein-Infeld: The Evolution of Physics. 1938. > > >> Text books try to make it look sophisticated and have to avoid > >> implications that aether is part of the thinking as they have to toe the > >> line and declare the aether a discredited concept. They even perpetuate > >> the lie that Einstein came up with a theory which got rid of the aether. > >> The removal of the aether from physics had nothing to do with Einstein, > >> was not the result of experiment nor theoretical wizardry but was > >> removed by an arbitrary decision that physical interpretation or > >> "theoretical structure" is an unnecessary part of physics theory. > > >> -- > >> John Kennaugh "Maxwells Equations are a mantra used by > >>scientists to impress > >> their maiden aunts. However, they are not used in anger". Ivor Catt > > -- > John Kennaugh
From: Androcles on 9 Feb 2010 11:28
"PD" <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:0f0b1bab-2f31-4ed9-b55c-aa0ba426c7d6(a)l19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... On Feb 9, 4:16 am, John Kennaugh <J...(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: > PD wrote: > >On Feb 7, 11:08 am, John Kennaugh <J...(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> > >wrote: > >> PD wrote: > >> >On Feb 6, 8:45 am, John Kennaugh <J...(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> > >> >wrote: > >> >> Bruce Richmond wrote: > > [bring back the art of sipping] > > > > > > >> >> >I don't think so. SR was based on the speed of light being a > >> >> >natural > >> >> >constant shared between frames. It extended the Principle of > >> >> >Relativity to electromagnetic phenomena. To do so the speed of > >> >> >light > >> >> >could not be attached to just a single frame. > > >> >> You are confusing 2 things. The PoR simply states that the same laws > >> >> shall apply to all FoR this means firstly that the speed of light > >> >> measured between a stationary source and a stationary detector must > >> >> be > >> >> the same constant in all FoR. Secondly that the relationship (law) > >> >> between the speed of the source and the speed of light must be the > >> >> same > >> >> in all FoR. > >> >> That law need not be as in SR "the speed is always c" it could be > >> >> "thed > >> >> speed is always c+v". > > >> >I think the claim is that Maxwell's laws are the same in all FoR. > > >> That won't do. It is ambiguous. > > >Why is it ambiguous? > > Why don't you read the post which answered that question > > > > >> It was assumed that Maxwell's equations > >> were describing light travelling in the aether. > > >It was assumed by who? > > RTFP My post answered that question also. What do you think the > assumption was behind the MMX? > > >It certainly is not assumed now and it wasn't > >assumed 30 years after he put those laws forward. > > >And what do the extraneous assumptions have to do with whether > >Maxwell's equations apply in the same form in all inertial frames? > > RTFP > > > > >The principle of relativity is simple and straightforward, > > and has nothing to say as to what the laws of physic ARE only that they > are the SAME in every FoR. That's exactly right. And so ----------------------------------- Phuckwit Duck is a grinagog. |