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 2 Feb 2010 04:33 On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 20:18:52 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote: >..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >[...] > >> >> ...but you still can't provide a logical physical reason as to why a light >> pulse should reflect at the same speed from two relatively moving mirrors. > >a) Maxwell's equations >b) Lorentz invariance >c) BECAUSE IT DOES. OBSERVATIONALLY. SUCK IT UP. > >Pick whichever one you like. poor boy...totally indoctrinated with bullshit. Henry Wilson... ........provider of free physics lessons
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 2 Feb 2010 15:17 On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 02:29:01 -0800 (PST), artful <artful_me(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >On Feb 2, 8:32�pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >> On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 21:20:20 -0800 (PST), artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >On Feb 2, 3:17�pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >> >> On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 19:23:37 -0800 (PST), artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >The incident speed wrt the mirror is the same as the reflected speed >> >> >wrt the mirror. That is how mirrors work. �Do you have a problem with >> >> >that? � >> >> >> I don't...but Einstein obviously did. >> >> >No .. he had no problem at all with that. >> >> >> S-----p->c(wrt source)--------------|M1 >> >> � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � |M2 v<- >> >> >> Let the pulse strike the two mirrors when they are adjacent. >> >> It closes on M1 at c and departs at c. >> >> It closes on M2 at c+v and departs at c-v. >> >> Strange, eh? >> >> >Not at all. �Closing speed is NOT the speed the light was incident on >> >the mirror. �You need the speed in the FRAME OF THE MIRROR >> >> Not according to Einstein. > >Yes .. according to Einstein > >> He needs the speed in the frame of the soruce. > >Not true. > >> >> I wonder how many fairies can dance on the surface of a mirror. >> >> >Do you believe in fairies. �Now THAT is strange >> >> I don't. Relativists do. > >No .. they don't. Your childish comments are just nonsense. Consider a vertical mirror moving towards a light source. S--------------------------v<--|M I challenge you to apply any of Einstein's equations to show that, in the mirror frame, the reflected and incident light speeds are the same. Henry Wilson... ........provider of free physics lessons
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 2 Feb 2010 15:20 On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 07:30:21 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Feb 1, 9:02�pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >> On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 17:00:50 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >On Feb 1, 5:59�pm, train <gehan.ameresek...(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? >> >> >They aren't. You are assuming that different closing velocities >> >corresponds to different speeds of emission. Nothing could be further >> >from the truth. That is the point of several of the responses here, >> >including Eric's, Tom's and mine. >> >> >> 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? >> >> >This is not what the principle of equivalence says. The principle of >> >equivalence makes NO claim that the "results" will be the same in >> >different inertial frames. This is KNOWN not to be true from the days >> >of Galileo. 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. What the principle of >> >equivalence says is that the laws of physics are the same in all >> >inertial frames -- and a parabolic path and a straight line path are >> >both described by the very same laws of physics. >> >> ...but you still can't provide a logical physical reason as to why a light >> pulse should reflect at the same speed from two relatively moving mirrors. > >I think you're asking for a "logical physical reason" that is >compatible with your intuition about how things work, and if a reason >is given that is counter to your intuition, then this is rejected by >you as a "logical physical reason", because to you all "logical >physical reasons" must be compatible with your intuition. This is >where you make a basic mistake. > >I think the best way to respond to this is to ask you about your >intuition and why YOU think it should be otherwise: that light should >reflect at *different* speeds from two relativity moving mirrors. Once >we can isolate your rationale about that expectation, then we can >perhaps figure out how to set that aright. Answer the question Diaper. Prove that the incident and reflected rays move at the same speed from a mirror moving wrt the source. Henry Wilson... ........provider of free physics lessons
From: John Kennaugh on 2 Feb 2010 15:23 Tom Roberts wrote: >Bruce Richmond wrote: >> On Jan 30, 8:18 pm, train <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> So would LET be supported by all the experiments that support SRT? >> Yes, they use the exact same math so experimentally they are in >> perfect agreement. > >Not true. SR has wider applicability than LET, Has been *applied* more widely than LET and added to > and experiments outside LET's domain but within SR's domain But would not have been when Einstein first formulated it. >do not support LET. This includes all experiments involving weak or >strong interactions. > >All experiments within electrodynamics support both SR and LET equally. > > >Tom Roberts -- John Kennaugh
From: tominlaguna on 2 Feb 2010 17:12
On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 04:17:12 GMT, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 19:23:37 -0800 (PST), artful <artful_me(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>On Feb 2, 2:02�pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >>> On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 17:00:50 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >On Feb 1, 5:59�pm, train <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>> >This is not what the principle of equivalence says. The principle of >>> >equivalence makes NO claim that the "results" will be the same in >>> >different inertial frames. This is KNOWN not to be true from the days >>> >of Galileo. 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. What the principle of >>> >equivalence says is that the laws of physics are the same in all >>> >inertial frames -- and a parabolic path and a straight line path are >>> >both described by the very same laws of physics. >>> ...but you still can't provide a logical physical reason as to why a light >>> pulse should reflect at the same speed from two relatively moving mirrors. >>> >>> Henry Wilson... >>> >>> .......provider of free physics lessons >> >>The incident speed wrt the mirror is the same as the reflected speed >>wrt the mirror. That is how mirrors work. Do you have a problem with >>that? > >I don't...but Einstein obviously did. > >S-----p->c(wrt source)--------------|M1 > |M2 v<- > >Let the pulse strike the two mirrors when they are adjacent. >It closes on M1 at c and departs at c. >It closes on M2 at c+v and departs at c-v. >Strange, eh? > >I wonder how many fairies can dance on the surface of a mirror. > >>Then use velocity composition to work out how that speed will >>be in another relatively moving inertial frame. Use vector addition / >>subtraction to work out closing/separation speeds > >Hahahahhaaha! What kind of answer is this? > >Einstein's velocity composition equation is just another form of his P2. >Look, I'll show you... > >Let w (the light speed in a frame moving at v) always be = c by postulate. > >w = c = c(c+v)/(c+v) = (c+v)/(1+v/c) = (c+v)/(1+vc/c^2) > Great job on the equation, Henry! Keep it up. >...can I have my Nobel now please...for being expert at sniffing out circular >logic? > > > >Henry Wilson... > >.......provider of free physics lessons |