De Sitter's experiment and the relative motion of photons with respect to the surface of the star
in [Relativity]
|
From: eric gisse on 2 Feb 2010 20:19 ...@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 15:52:11 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 14:51:12 -0800 (PST), artful <artful_me(a)hotmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>On Feb 3, 7:17 am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >>>>> 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. >>>> >>>>What sort of challenge is that? Pretty much trivial. >>>> >>>>SR says speed of light is c in every inertial frame .. so in frame of >>>>mirror, incident speed is c and reflected speed is c. c == c. Done. >>> >>> Not done. You have merely restated P2. >>> >>>>If you really want, you can use the velocity composition formula to >>>>convert the speed c in the S frame to c in the M frame. And if >>>>incident speed is c, reflected speed is c. >>> >>> Is it? >>> >>> Why don't you show me how and why, eh? >> >>What would be the point of that? > > To prove that there isn't a great hole in the consistency of SR as a > mathematical theory... Stop demanding people waste their time trying to explain physics to someone who has spent the last decade screaming about how incoherent relativity is to him. You'll never be satisfied. Waste your own time. > >>> Show exactly how a closing speed of c+v and a separation speed of c-v in >>> the source frame can translate into both speeds equalling c in the >>> mirror frame. You are free to use any of Einstein's equations. >>> >>> >>> >>> Henry Wilson... >>> >>> .......provider of free physics lessons > > > Henry Wilson... > > .......provider of free physics lessons
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 2 Feb 2010 22:02 On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 17:19:17 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote: >..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > >> On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 15:52:11 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >>> >>>> On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 14:51:12 -0800 (PST), artful <artful_me(a)hotmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Feb 3, 7:17 am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >>>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>>What sort of challenge is that? Pretty much trivial. >>>>> >>>>>SR says speed of light is c in every inertial frame .. so in frame of >>>>>mirror, incident speed is c and reflected speed is c. c == c. Done. >>>> >>>> Not done. You have merely restated P2. >>>> >>>>>If you really want, you can use the velocity composition formula to >>>>>convert the speed c in the S frame to c in the M frame. And if >>>>>incident speed is c, reflected speed is c. >>>> >>>> Is it? >>>> >>>> Why don't you show me how and why, eh? >>> >>>What would be the point of that? >> >> To prove that there isn't a great hole in the consistency of SR as a >> mathematical theory... > >Stop demanding people waste their time trying to explain physics to someone >who has spent the last decade screaming about how incoherent relativity is >to him. Instead of whining, do it boy. Show how the incident and reflected light has the same speed in the mirror frame. >You'll never be satisfied. Waste your own time. Instead of whining, do it boy. Henry Wilson... ........provider of free physics lessons
From: Androcles on 2 Feb 2010 22:16 "PD" <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:95447416-3453-41c6-b880-ccc286bc3be2(a)v37g2000prh.googlegroups.com... On Feb 2, 2:21 pm, John Kennaugh <J...(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: > PD wrote: > >On Jan 31, 1:23 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > >> De Sitter's argument supports many theories that consider the speed of > >> light to be source independent. Other experiments eliminate most of > >> them. 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. > > >This isn't quite so. SR makes predictions that LET does not, and > >that's because the *physical* foundations are different, though the > >math is common in their *common* experimental domain. > > What a load of waffle. > SR does not have any *physical* foundations it is a principle theory; a > mathematical model based on "empirical foundations" (AE). It is based > upon two postulates the first was thought not to apply to EM theory as > it was believed that every FoR was unique in that it had a unique speed > w.r.t Maxwell's aether. That was shown not to be the case as the sort of > experiment expected to show absolute speed dependency failed to do so. > The PoR which has its origins with Galileo I think was therefore > re-established empirically. The second postulate is a mixture of > > i) Maxwell's aether theory - which stated that the speed of light is > independent of the speed of the source because it is constant w.r.t the > aether. > > ii) The generally held view among Einstein's contemporaries was that the > MMX had shown that an observer has always zero speed w.r.t the aether. > The second postulate simply describes what an observer stationary w.r.t > the aether would observe. Einstein's attempts to convince others that he > was on to something *physical* in justification of the postulate in the > form of "an aether without the immobility of Lorentz's" (1920 lecture) > failed. Einstein's objection to Lorentz's theory was in respect of the > theoretical structure i.e. its physical interpretation and he totally > failed to come up with an alternative. Physicists decided that a physics > theory did not require a physical interpretation and accepted SR without > one. As the aether was part of the physical interpretation of Maxwell's > theory this decision also allowed physics to disown the aether and > describe a set of equations SR/Lorentz and Maxwell as a "theory". > > >Thus, experimental support for our model of the weak > >interaction is also support for SR, though not for LET > >For example, SR > >makes the statement that ANY interaction must be manifestly covariant, > >which includes, for example, the weak interaction. LET makes no claim > >like that. > > If you are talking of the theory as provided by Einstein then his theory > made no such claim either. But I did not say that. I said SR, which is a *living* theory, not one that came complete and in finished form in 1905. ============================================= Like Latin is a living language, I suppose. Phuckwit Ducks. http://www.insidesocal.com/tomhoffarth/feeding-mallard-ducks_7356.jpg > All you are saying is that such a statement > has been added as a part of relativity but has not been added to LET. SR > is simply Lorentz's maths without the theory which went with it. That's incorrect. SR as it *presently* exists is a physical theory that has a *different* physical basis than LET. ============================================= Who wrote modern SR, Phuckwit Duck? "I've lost interest. Foam and blather and waste all the time you want. You're not getting anywhere."--Phuckwit Duck --d23006a4-4a88-4efb-b1f4-12b11539952c(a)c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com quote/ I have to admit that I am demoralized at the moment. I had hoped that we could fight ignorance with a proactive rather than a reactive approach, but this is clearly the improper forum for that. A quick survey of the length of threads initiated by or drifting to nonsense compared to the length of threads based on sound thinking reveals the true interest in the proposal. While it would be a useful project to contribute to the FAQ, the intent was to educate in the context of discussion, a virtual "classroom" if you will. There's no point in contributing to a reference that none of the "students" will read or attempt to learn from. The intention was to focus on *exactly* what is wrong in someone's thinking (which varies from person to person), set it straight, and then make progress from there. I had high hopes -- really -- that perhaps one misguided soul would read something sensible and say, "Oh... Really?...Oh. I see I was confused. OK, I get it now. Now what about...?" My head knew better, my heart does not. [sitting in the duck blind, waiting with a shotgun for a duck to appear] PD /unquote > > >. The converse > >is that if *any* interaction showed signs of violating covariance, > >then SR would be in some trouble, while LET would not necessarily be > >likewise. So the stakes are higher in that regard for SR. > > -- > John Kennaugh
From: eric gisse on 2 Feb 2010 23:41 ...@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: [...] >>>>> Why don't you show me how and why, eh? >>>> >>>>What would be the point of that? >>> >>> To prove that there isn't a great hole in the consistency of SR as a >>> mathematical theory... >> >>Stop demanding people waste their time trying to explain physics to >>someone who has spent the last decade screaming about how incoherent >>relativity is to him. > > Instead of whining, do it boy. > > Show how the incident and reflected light has the same speed in the mirror > frame. > > >>You'll never be satisfied. Waste your own time. > > Instead of whining, do it boy. I will not do any derivations from relativity for you. Period. You've explained - repeatedly - that you not only find the theory incoherent but have explained you have no desire to learn the theory. On the other hand, I've been asking you - for years - to substantiate your claims with actual mathematical derivations. And you've never done it. Not once. > > > > Henry Wilson... > > .......provider of free physics lessons
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 3 Feb 2010 00:39
On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 20:41:39 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote: >..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >[...] > >>>>>> Why don't you show me how and why, eh? >>>>> >>>>>What would be the point of that? >>>> >>>> To prove that there isn't a great hole in the consistency of SR as a >>>> mathematical theory... >>> >>>Stop demanding people waste their time trying to explain physics to >>>someone who has spent the last decade screaming about how incoherent >>>relativity is to him. >> >> Instead of whining, do it boy. >> >> Show how the incident and reflected light has the same speed in the mirror >> frame. >> >> >>>You'll never be satisfied. Waste your own time. >> >> Instead of whining, do it boy. > >I will not do any derivations from relativity for you. Period. You've >explained - repeatedly - that you not only find the theory incoherent but >have explained you have no desire to learn the theory. > >On the other hand, I've been asking you - for years - to substantiate your >claims with actual mathematical derivations. And you've never done it. Not >once. Well instead of worrying about that, why don't you show how the incident and reflected light has the same speed in the moving mirror frame. You can't, can you? Henry Wilson... ........provider of free physics lessons |