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 3 Feb 2010 21:57 On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 18:45:45 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Feb 3, 7:21�pm, train <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Feb 3, 9:41�pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> > I'm sorry, but that just doesn't happen, nor does the principle of >> > relativity say it has to. The LAW is the same for both parabolic and >> > straight path trajectories. >> >> OK so instead of a ball, how about a photon emitted downwards from the >> mast of the ship? >> A parabolic path? Not so. > >In a falling frame, yes! But not in the case you mention. Hahaha! Got caught there didn't you diaper...Of course it's parabolic. >> A straight path downwards? Or an angled >> path ? > >And again, note what I showed you about transformation of velocities. >The same law may be in effect, but this does not mean that you should >expect the same results. Recall that for bodies with v<c, transforming >velocities changes the value of v. But for v=c, the very same >transformation law does not change the value of v. > >It is simply improper to expect that if there is a behavior governed >by a natural law for a ball, then we should expect the same behavior >for a photon, even if governed by the same natural law. > >This is why it is important to know what the LAWS are, not just the >superficial behaviors. > >> >> > > > > 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? >> >> Henry Wilson... ........provider of free physics lessons
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 4 Feb 2010 00:34 On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 20:15:00 -0800 (PST), Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >On Feb 3, 8:57�pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >> On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 18:45:45 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >On Feb 3, 7:21�pm, train <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> OK so instead of a ball, how about a photon emitted downwards from the >> >> mast of the ship? >> >> A parabolic path? Not so. >> >> >In a falling frame, yes! But not in the case you mention. >> >> Hahaha! Got caught there didn't you diaper...Of course it's parabolic. > >Oh, come on, Henri! EVEN ASSUMING CLASSICAL MECHANICS, you would >be dead wrong. Bull. Light speeds up as it falls. It follows a parabola in a moving frame just like any object would. .. >What trajectory would be followed by an object >that passes by the Earth at greater than escape velocity? that's totally irrelevant. >Jerry Henry Wilson... ........provider of free physics lessons
From: eric gisse on 4 Feb 2010 01:15 ...@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 20:15:00 -0800 (PST), Jerry > <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >>On Feb 3, 8:57 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >>> On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 18:45:45 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >On Feb 3, 7:21 pm, train <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >> OK so instead of a ball, how about a photon emitted downwards from >>> >> the mast of the ship? >>> >> A parabolic path? Not so. >>> >>> >In a falling frame, yes! But not in the case you mention. >>> >>> Hahaha! Got caught there didn't you diaper...Of course it's parabolic. >> >>Oh, come on, Henri! EVEN ASSUMING CLASSICAL MECHANICS, you would >>be dead wrong. > > Bull. Light speeds up as it falls. Do you have any evidence for this, or is this just another one of your personal feelings masquerading as 'science' ? > It follows a parabola in a moving frame > just like any object would. > . >>What trajectory would be followed by an object >>that passes by the Earth at greater than escape velocity? > > that's totally irrelevant. Saying 'hyperbola' is exactly two words than your non-answer. Yet you choose to go the that path. Henri, how are people supposed to know that you are as smart as you think you are when all you do is say stupid things? http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/65d8fac94b6e4d61?dmode=source "A cepheid curve is similar to that of a star in orbit with yaw between about 50 and 80 and ecc around 2-3. there are plenty like that. " > >>Jerry > > > Henry Wilson... > > .......provider of free physics lessons
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 4 Feb 2010 02:34 On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 22:15:26 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote: >..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > >> On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 20:15:00 -0800 (PST), Jerry >> <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> >>>On Feb 3, 8:57 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >>>> On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 18:45:45 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >On Feb 3, 7:21 pm, train <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >> OK so instead of a ball, how about a photon emitted downwards from >>>> >> the mast of the ship? >>>> >> A parabolic path? Not so. >>>> >>>> >In a falling frame, yes! But not in the case you mention. >>>> >>>> Hahaha! Got caught there didn't you diaper...Of course it's parabolic. >>> >>>Oh, come on, Henri! EVEN ASSUMING CLASSICAL MECHANICS, you would >>>be dead wrong. >> >> Bull. Light speeds up as it falls. > >Do you have any evidence for this, or is this just another one of your >personal feelings masquerading as 'science' ? Yes, the Pound-Rebka experiment. Why don't you look it up at your library? >> It follows a parabola in a moving frame >> just like any object would. >> . >>>What trajectory would be followed by an object >>>that passes by the Earth at greater than escape velocity? >> >> that's totally irrelevant. > >Saying 'hyperbola' is exactly two words than your non-answer. Yet you choose >to go the that path. > >Henri, how are people supposed to know that you are as smart as you think >you are when all you do is say stupid things? We are talking about an object falling vertically in one frame . It follows a parabola in a horizontally moving frame. Diaper didn't want to admit a light beam does the same. >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/65d8fac94b6e4d61?dmode=source > >"A cepheid curve is similar to that of a star in orbit with yaw between >about 50 and 80 and ecc around 2-3. there are plenty like that. " That's right. If you knew anything about physics, you would see the similarity. The attractive force falls off with r^2. Try using your brain for once if you have one. You might even be able to figure out the YAW analogy too if you really try. Henry Wilson... ........provider of free physics lessons
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 4 Feb 2010 02:44
On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 22:05:12 -0800 (PST), Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >On Feb 3, 11:34�pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >> On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 20:15:00 -0800 (PST), Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> >> wrote: >> >> >On Feb 3, 8:57�pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >> >> On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 18:45:45 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >On Feb 3, 7:21�pm, train <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> OK so instead of a ball, how about a photon emitted downwards from the >> >> >> mast of the ship? >> >> >> A parabolic path? Not so. >> >> >> >In a falling frame, yes! But not in the case you mention. >> >> >> Hahaha! Got caught there didn't you diaper...Of course it's parabolic. >> >> >Oh, come on, Henri! EVEN ASSUMING CLASSICAL MECHANICS, you would >> >be dead wrong. >> >> Bull. Light speeds up as it falls. It follows a parabola in a moving frame just >> like any object would. >> . >> >> >What trajectory would be followed by an object >> >that passes by the Earth at greater than escape velocity? >> >> that's totally irrelevant. > >HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA >HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA >HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA >HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA >HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA >HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA >HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA HYPERBOLA we were talking about an object falling vertically downward. Diaper said it follows a parabolic path in a horizontally moving frame. Do you have any objections? >Jerry Henry Wilson... ........provider of free physics lessons |