De Sitter's experiment and the relative motion of photons with respect to the surface of the star
in [Relativity]
|
From: eric gisse on 3 Feb 2010 02:30 ...@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > 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 Well of course. I've only been asking for years, your sudden desire for me to work a homework problem for you is more urgent. > , 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? Why, Henri. Are you asking me to work a simple exercise in relativity for you because you can't do it yourself? If you are, I'll gladly help you work through it. Only if that's the case, though. Is that the case? > > Henry Wilson... > > .......provider of free physics lessons
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 3 Feb 2010 04:42 On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 23:30:49 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote: >..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > >> On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 20:41:39 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >>>[...] >> Well instead of worrying about that > >Well of course. I've only been asking for years, your sudden desire for me >to work a homework problem for you is more urgent. > >> , 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? > >Why, Henri. Are you asking me to work a simple exercise in relativity for >you because you can't do it yourself? > >If you are, I'll gladly help you work through it. Only if that's the case, >though. Is that the case? The plain fact is, relativity doesn't have an answer. If it did, you would surely reveal it. Henry Wilson... ........provider of free physics lessons
From: jem on 3 Feb 2010 08:41 John Kennaugh wrote: > PD wrote: >> 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. > > and it says something different to LET now because LET has been declared > dead and has thus been prevented from developing. > > Analogy - You have two twins, you allow one to take an exam and prevent > the other from doing so. One twin has passed an exam which the other > hasn't therefore he is intellectually superior. > SR is simply a re-statement of Lorentz's theory. > >>> 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. > > OK if you won't spell it out I will do so for you. Einstein based his > theory on two postulates, one of which simply describes what an observer > stationary w.r.t the aether would observe because in Einstein's mind and > in those of his contemporaries Maxwell was god and couldn't be wrong so > the MMX got interpreted as showing that an observer has always zero > velocity w.r.t the aether. > > As far as a physical basis is concerned AE described relativity as based > on empirical starting points and stated "it puts forward no specific > hypotheses". The "physical basis" which you are referring to is not > therefore something which Einstein proposed. > > The mathematical relationships which first Lorentz and then Einstein > derived were put into the form of a diagram by Minkowski. I don't see > what difference that makes. It is the same maths. Nor do I see why it > should be considered an extension of SR rather than LET which has the > same maths and pre-dates Einstein's. > > Christian fundamentalists base their belief on the concept that the > Bible is more than 'just a book' and contains a universal truth. > > You base your belief on the concept that Minkowski's diagram is more > than 'just a diagram' and represents a universal truth which transcends > the mathematical relationships on which it is constructed. Without any > justification other than faith you describe that diagram as a "physical" > basis of SR. > > I can understand why as an educator you have to sell relativity to your > students and would want to move the emphasis away from the postulates > and their rather embarrassing origins but I can hardly credit the idea > that you actually *believe* it yourself or that you should try and pass > off the "spin" version among the grownups. Perhaps it really is an > Article of Faith for you. > > As Dr Scott Murray points out: > > "To such opinion no factual proof was convincing: one can neither prove > nor disprove an Article of Faith." > > In fact SR fails spectacularly at the most basic of levels. If I change > *my* speed then the frequency of any light I am looking at will > instantaneously change. LET explains this by saying that I have changed > my speed w.r.t the aether and thus w.r.t the light so the waves are > passing me at a different speed. My measurement of that speed, with > transformed instruments means it *seems* as if my speed hasn't changed > while the change of frequency proves conclusively that it has. > > SR cannot explain it in any rational physical way. A relativists belief > system is underpinned by insisting that we *think* in terms of "Frames > of Reference". A FoR is a mathematical abstraction and an intellectual > crutch. Relativists imbue it with magical properties. They declare that > before I change my speed there pre-exists a FoR where the light has a > different wavelength and when I change my speed I "move into it". This > is nonsense; physically there is just "space". All FoR map that same space. > > http://www.natscience.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/relativity/13482/success-Now-pos > sible-where-Einstein-failed Kennaugh, you get kookier every year.
From: eric gisse on 3 Feb 2010 10:24 ...@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 23:30:49 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 20:41:39 -0800, eric gisse >>> <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >>>>[...] > >>> Well instead of worrying about that >> >>Well of course. I've only been asking for years, your sudden desire for me >>to work a homework problem for you is more urgent. >> >>> , 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? >> >>Why, Henri. Are you asking me to work a simple exercise in relativity for >>you because you can't do it yourself? >> >>If you are, I'll gladly help you work through it. Only if that's the case, >>though. Is that the case? > > The plain fact is, relativity doesn't have an answer. If it did, you would > surely reveal it. Sorry Henri, you aren't going to goad me into doing it for you. This is a simple homework exercise that I would HELP YOU work through if you would put some effort out of your own. > > > Henry Wilson... > > .......provider of free physics lessons
From: PD on 3 Feb 2010 11:34
On Feb 3, 5:07 am, John Kennaugh <J...(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: > PD wrote: > >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. > > and it says something different to LET now because LET has been declared > dead and has thus been prevented from developing. I dunno about that. Who has prevented people from developing LET? > > Analogy - You have two twins, you allow one to take an exam and prevent > the other from doing so. Prevent how? Is the second twin unmotivated? Does someone have to FORCE the second twin to take the exam? Does someone have to PAY the second twin to take the exam? > One twin has passed an exam which the other > hasn't therefore he is intellectually superior. > SR is simply a re-statement of Lorentz's theory. > > >> 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. > > OK if you won't spell it out I will do so for you. Einstein based his > theory on two postulates, Yes, indeed, and the physical basis of those two postulates was put forward LATER. Just as I said. > one of which simply describes what an observer > stationary w.r.t the aether would observe because in Einstein's mind and > in those of his contemporaries Maxwell was god and couldn't be wrong so > the MMX got interpreted as showing that an observer has always zero > velocity w.r.t the aether. > > As far as a physical basis is concerned AE described relativity as based > on empirical starting points and stated "it puts forward no specific > hypotheses". The "physical basis" which you are referring to is not > therefore something which Einstein proposed. > > The mathematical relationships which first Lorentz and then Einstein > derived were put into the form of a diagram by Minkowski. I don't see > what difference that makes. It is the same maths. Nor do I see why it > should be considered an extension of SR rather than LET which has the > same maths and pre-dates Einstein's. > > Christian fundamentalists base their belief on the concept that the > Bible is more than 'just a book' and contains a universal truth. > > You base your belief on the concept that Minkowski's diagram is more > than 'just a diagram' and represents a universal truth which transcends > the mathematical relationships on which it is constructed. Without any > justification other than faith you describe that diagram as a "physical" > basis of SR. > > I can understand why as an educator you have to sell relativity to your > students and would want to move the emphasis away from the postulates > and their rather embarrassing origins but I can hardly credit the idea > that you actually *believe* it yourself or that you should try and pass > off the "spin" version among the grownups. Perhaps it really is an > Article of Faith for you. > > As Dr Scott Murray points out: > > "To such opinion no factual proof was convincing: one can neither prove > nor disprove an Article of Faith." > > In fact SR fails spectacularly at the most basic of levels. If I change > *my* speed then the frequency of any light I am looking at will > instantaneously change. LET explains this by saying that I have changed > my speed w.r.t the aether and thus w.r.t the light so the waves are > passing me at a different speed. My measurement of that speed, with > transformed instruments means it *seems* as if my speed hasn't changed > while the change of frequency proves conclusively that it has. > > SR cannot explain it in any rational physical way. A relativists belief > system is underpinned by insisting that we *think* in terms of "Frames > of Reference". A FoR is a mathematical abstraction and an intellectual > crutch. Relativists imbue it with magical properties. They declare that > before I change my speed there pre-exists a FoR where the light has a > different wavelength and when I change my speed I "move into it". This > is nonsense; physically there is just "space". All FoR map that same > space. > > http://www.natscience.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/relativity/13482/success-Now... > sible-where-Einstein-failed > > > > >> >. 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 |