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 18:51 "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:J--dnTZuPee0WfnW4p2dnAA(a)giganews.com... It's ridiculous to assume ====================== That makes you ridiculous, Roberts, but we knew that all along. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DominoEffect.GIF
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 30 Jan 2010 22:38 On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 17:12:01 -0800 (PST), train <gehan.ameresekere(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Jan 31, 4:43�am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> train wrote: >> > Why should there be different closing speeds between photons and the star >> > surfaces depending on which side of the star the photons are emitted? >> >> Because the closing speed has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the physical process >> of emitting photons (light). >> >> An important concept is "all physics is local" [#]. The emission of photons by >> the star surface is related to that surface, not the distant observer whose >> frame was used to determine the above closing speed. In the star's rest frame, >> the photons are emitted with speed c from all parts of the surface -- that is >> the speed that is relevant to the emission process. >> >> � � � � Again, I'm ignoring all quantum aspects. >> >> � � � � [#] some quantum aspects may not be local. Caveat utilitor. >> >> > On the 'Earth side' of the star, the photon emission process is calculated to >> > have a closing speed between the surface of the star and the photon of c-v, >> > and on the 'non -Earth side' the corresponding speed is c+v. This difference >> > is attributed to, and only to the Earth's being on the particular side of the >> > star. >> >> No. It is "attributed" to the fact that the star is APPROACHING earth with speed >> v. Had it been moving away from earth with speed v the signs would be reversed. >> >> > An Earth centered Ether would explain this particular aspect very nicely. >> >> How could there possibly be an "earth centered Ether" in the vicinity of a >> distant star? It's ridiculous to assume that Earth is so important that its >> presence affects the entire cosmos. > >OK I think Wilson's personal ether is a better description. However >this >leads to contradictions that can be explained away.. > >Tell me this, if we all adopted LET would we be able to explain all >its contradictions? >And more to the point would we be able to say about LET that 'billions >and billions of experiments have confirmed the validity of LET?' Ahem! No experiment has confirmed either SR or LET. Supporters of these theories like to repeat to each other that billions of supporting experiments exist. They end up believing it. >> And, of course, ethers of any type have difficulty explaining ALL of the >> relevant experiments. >> > > Can we say the same about SRT? > >But I digress. So did Einstein... >> Because the closing speed has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the physical process >> of emitting photons (light). > >Scientists make observations and perform calculations. Arent' both are >equally valid? >If the calculated emission speed is different for different places in >the orbit of the star, what can this be attributed to then? How do we >know when to apply calculations - or do we >make the calculations and dismiss them when they contradict SRT? SR cannot be directly contradicted since, like earth centrism, it is a consistent theory. It is actually possible to calculate all motions in the universe using planet Earth as the centre. The maths becomes awfully complicated though. SR is much the same. Einstein tried to describe a universe in which light speed always has the same measured value. To do that he had to concoct length and time contractions as well as ways to try to explain the inevitable paradoxes that followed. Such departures from physical reality might entertain scifi addicts but have no place in modern physics. Since to this day nobody has measured OWLS from a moving source, his theory is still capable of amusing lots of little boys with small minds. >T > >> Tom Roberts Henry Wilson... ........provider of free physics lessons
From: eric gisse on 31 Jan 2010 01:12 ...@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: [...] > Ahem! No experiment has confirmed either SR or LET. *cough* LIAR > > Supporters of these theories like to repeat to each other that billions of > supporting experiments exist. They end up believing it. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html I can see how you would believe no experiments support SR since you are wholly incapable of going to a library and reading what's listed on that page. > >>> And, of course, ethers of any type have difficulty explaining ALL of the >>> relevant experiments. >>> >> >> Can we say the same about SRT? >> >>But I digress. > > So did Einstein... Straight to a BS, PhD, then Nobel prize in Physics, and finally into the history books for all time. > >>> Because the closing speed has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the physical >>> process of emitting photons (light). >> >>Scientists make observations and perform calculations. Arent' both are >>equally valid? >>If the calculated emission speed is different for different places in >>the orbit of the star, what can this be attributed to then? How do we >>know when to apply calculations - or do we >>make the calculations and dismiss them when they contradict SRT? > > SR cannot be directly contradicted since, like earth centrism, it is a > consistent theory. It is actually possible to calculate all motions in the > universe using planet Earth as the centre. The maths becomes awfully > complicated though. SR is much the same. ....would now be a bad time to point out your argument makes no sense and that it applies equally 'well' to classical mechanics? > > Einstein tried to describe a universe in which light speed always has the > same measured value. To do that he had to concoct length and time > contractions as well as ways to try to explain the inevitable paradoxes > that followed. Such departures from physical reality might entertain scifi > addicts but have no place in modern physics. Might I ask how you can know what modern physics is when you exist completely outside of it and show no intention to learn what it says? > Since to this day nobody has measured OWLS from a moving source, his > theory is still capable of amusing lots of little boys with small minds. http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0609202 To this day you have not read the article that explicitly disproves your claim, which is rather consistent with the behavior you show above. Do you still have great personal difficulty with opening the link that exists not even 4 lines above this sentence? > >>T >> >>> Tom Roberts > > > Henry Wilson... > > .......provider of free physics lessons
From: fritzius on 31 Jan 2010 13:09 On Jan 28, 2:20 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > John Kennaugh wrote: > > [...] > > > DeSitter told everyone what they wanted to hear so his work was not > > scrutinised as much as it should have been. > > Do you even think before you type? > Eric, I'm with John on this. Best I can tell de Sitter was pushing Einstin's "new" relativity for all he was worth. To do that he had to turn people away from Ritz's competing outlook. Four articles, all bent toward shooting down Ritz's relativity, seems to me as protesting too much. See John's ref: http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/desitter.htm In one of the two de Sitter German language papers mentions a study in which the statiscics for the calculated orbits for spectroscopic binaries supported Ritzian relativity. De Sitter offered what he considered as more "appropriate" statistics to refute Ritz. I don't have a copy of the referenced study (in German) but have come across an earlier study (in English) that points out a proclivity for the orbits of spectroscopic binaries to allign their longer axes to line up with the solar system (the Barr effect). See: http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/barr.htm The Barr effect is still alive and well. Go to NASA ADS and search for the author Barr, 1908 I think. Bob Fritzius
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 31 Jan 2010 17:39
On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 11:23:14 -0800 (PST), Bruce Richmond <bsr3997(a)my-deja.com> wrote: >On Jan 31, 11:54�am, train <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Jan 31, 11:54�am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: >> >> > > > Do you really think our insignificant little speck of dust determines >> > > > the rest state of the Ether throughout the universe? >> >> > > It does seem unlikely. See Personal ether... >> >> > The idea was given to you for free and you get what you paid for. �It >> > is a stupid idea. �Ask him to explain how multiple ethers occupy the >> > same space at the same time. �That makes as much sense as saying the >> > speed of sound can be the same for everyone if you give relativly >> > moving observers their own personal air in which they are at rest. >> >> Also that personal air will overlap with everyone elses but not mix, >> sort of like a frame of reference. >> > > >Uh, no. Frames of reference can actually overlap without affecting >each other while bodies of air cannot. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > 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. >> >> > > > 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. >> >> > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory >> >> > > So would LET be supported by all the experiments that support SRT?- Hide quoted text - >> >> > Yes, they use the exact same math so experimentally they are in >> > perfect agreement. �And to Wilson, if an experiment does not disprove >> > a theory then it can be said that it supports the theory. �That is not >> > the same thing as saying that it confirms the theory. >> >> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >> >> > > - Show quoted text - >> > > So would LET be supported by all the experiments that support SRT?- Hide quoted text - >> >> Two theories supported by the same facts. Something I learned about >> one to one and one to many relationships and logic is starting to >> trouble me. > >De Sitter's argument supports many theories that consider the speed of >light to be source independent. Other experiments eliminate most of >them. they don't. ....they all used the wrong model... >To eliminate a theory you need to come up with an experiment >that contradicts a prediction of the theory. Since SR and LET share >the same math you can't eliminate one without also eliminating the >other. > >> I am a little confused. And maybe the whole thing is getting a bit >> scary as well. >> >> "What is truth?"- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - Henry Wilson... ........provider of free physics lessons |