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 31 Jan 2010 20:07 On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 16:38:05 -0800 (PST), train <gehan.ameresekere(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Feb 1, 1:49�am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >> >> >> > Henry Wilson... >> >> > .......provider of free physics lessons > >A search for Filipas and Fox yields a paper with the following: > >Contrary to the popular view, a search of the literature reveals that >the experimental basis >for the special theory of relativity in the photon sector is not >robust. >arxiv.org/pdf/0912.3818 - Don't take little eric too seriously...he's more like a pet parrot than a genuine contributor. Henry Wilson... ........provider of free physics lessons
From: eric gisse on 31 Jan 2010 21:35 ...@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 16:38:05 -0800 (PST), train > <gehan.ameresekere(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>On Feb 1, 1:49 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > > >>> >>> >>> > Henry Wilson... >>> >>> > .......provider of free physics lessons >> >>A search for Filipas and Fox yields a paper with the following: >> >>Contrary to the popular view, a search of the literature reveals that >>the experimental basis >>for the special theory of relativity in the photon sector is not >>robust. >>arxiv.org/pdf/0912.3818 - > > Don't take little eric too seriously...he's more like a pet parrot than a > genuine contributor. ....and what have you contributed? > > Henry Wilson... > > .......provider of free physics lessons
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 1 Feb 2010 15:54 On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 12:51:22 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Feb 1, 2:37�pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > >> >> SR has NO application, anywhere. It has never been used. There are NO >> supporting experiments. >> > >When Ralph doesn't have something to say, he just makes up something, >to stir the pot. > >His statement bears no more credibility than ones like "We have NEVER >landed on the moon, at any time. There is no evidence that we ever >did. The whole thing is just fiction." > >It's called trolling. Your type of mental disability is called self-delusion. Henry Wilson... ........provider of free physics lessons
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 1 Feb 2010 19:15 On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 15:59:09 -0800 (PST), train <gehan.ameresekere(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Feb 2, 12:32�am, Tom Roberts <tjrob...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> train wrote: >> > if we all adopted LET would we be able to explain all >.... > >> >> >> 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? >> >> For what purpose? One can measure and compute just about anything. But if one >> wants to model the emission process at the surface of a star, the closing speed >> measured in the frame of some distant observer is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT. >> >> > If the calculated emission speed is different for different places in >> > the orbit of the star, what can this be attributed to then? >> >> To the fact that the star is moving IN AN ORBIT relative to the frame used to >> compute the closing speed. Remember that closing speeds are not physically >> relevant to any process or phenomena, and are merely bookkeeping in the frame >> used to compute them. The fact that they behave in what you think is a curious >> manner is just due to the way the bookkeeping works out. > >The observation of the star or binary stars is an observation of a >phenomenon, so is the observation of the emission of light from the >star. Measurements and calculations are applied to a process being >observed. > >If the constancy of the speed of light is assumed, and assumed to be >supported by the facts, >then what reason can be given for the physical process by which >photons are emitted from the star >at different velocities depending on the direction of the star? > >The answer may be 'it appears to be so' or 'that's just the way it >is'. However is not the principle of equivalence violated since a >certain phenomenon, a 'physical experiment' is showing different >results based the direction the relative motion of the star to a >distant object? > >Is there a physical reason for the different closing speeds - the >apparent difference in the emission of light from the surface of the >star from different points in its orbit? > >To simplify matters, replace the binary star system with a turntable >with a light bulb at its circumference, rotating at high speed, in a >local laboratory. > >Once again c-v and c+v applies to the closing speed between the light >source and the emitted photon. What is the reason for this? It's called blind faith... Henry Wilson... ........provider of free physics lessons
From: eric gisse on 1 Feb 2010 11:22
...@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: [...] > Your type of mental disability is called self-delusion. The lack of self awareness it takes for you to utter this sentence is beyond imagination. > > Henry Wilson... > > .......provider of free physics lessons |