Minkowski Metric.
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Infinite vs. instant
Next: It's a heatwave
From: Paul B. Andersen on 31 May 2010 06:30 On 30.05.2010 23:55, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: > > ....and, "if the clocks don't give the required answer, just change their > readings"....Einstein 1905 Everything about Henry Wilson, including his name, doctorate, degrees and quotations, are forged. But of course you knew that. Who doesn't? -- Paul http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 31 May 2010 18:26 On Sun, 30 May 2010 23:04:56 +0100, "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > >"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message >news:blm506dr7d6bdgnlblongqane9bk0o1m67(a)4ax.com... > >| De Sitter used the wrong velocities because he knew nothing about >ADoppler. > >Nor does anyone else. Provide an equation instead of a word and then we can >all laugh. The equation is the same as that used to calculate brightness variation but with the additional factor W. I'll show you. A source is moving at 'v' towards an observer O at distance D and is accelerating at 'a'. The task is to calculate the amount of 'photon bunching' at the observer. Let N photons be emitted in time t. The last one travels at (c+v+at) wrt O. The first photon reaches O in time D/(c+v) seconds. The last in D/(c+v+at) The difference in arrival times is ~ D(at/c^2) ...(ignoring small terms) So photon arrival rate is increased by the factor Da/c^2. So much for brightness variation...That is the equation we effectively use in our computer simulations. ********************** Now, individual photons should do something similar since they are emitted over a finite time interval dt. Consider a photon as a long length of sinewave. The front end moves at c+v, the rear end at c+v+adt....so the same equation defines the contraction of the photon as a whole and therefore the fractional contraction between each 'wavecrest'. BUT Whereas individual photons can move wrt each other indefinitely, photons themselves possess a natural resistance to compression....somewhat like a coil spring.... Hence the factor W, named after me. Lambda = Lambda0 * DWa/c^2, a variation that is typically considerably larger than conventional VDoppler wavelength shifts even though W is quite small. So, not only are all calculated stellar velocities likely to be grossly in error, their phasing is also about 90 degrees out since acceleration leads velocity wrt the observer by that much. Amongst other things, this explains why cepheid velocity curves are virtual mirror images of their brightness curves. It could also explain the cosmic redshift since photon 'stretching' (red shift) is likely to be less restricted than their 'compression' (blue). Henry Wilson... ........Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 31 May 2010 18:37 On Sun, 30 May 2010 17:07:18 -0700, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote: >..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > >> On Sun, 30 May 2010 13:23:34 -0700, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >>> >>>> On Sat, 29 May 2010 06:49:40 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On May 29, 8:03 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: >>>>>> On May 28, 11:44 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> > First question is, why do you feel the need to disprove relativity? >>>>>> >>>>>> Cannot be disproved means not falsifiable....any theory cannot be >>>>>> falsified, by definition, is not scientific. >>>>> >>>>>I didn't say relativity wasn't falsifiable. It is certainly >>>>>falsifiable, and a number of tests have been performed in that >>>>>attempt. >>>>>I asked why the OP felt the NEED to disprove relativity. >>>> >>>> ...because the Einsteinian version has brought physics almost to a >>>> standstill. >>> >>>So you are of the opinion that science and technology today is essentially >>>where it was at in 1904? >>> >>>Are you retarded? >> >> No, astronomy is.....because of Einstein. > >Ah, just astronomy? > >Not thermodynamics, which Einstein directly contributed to (theory of >Brownian motion, calculation of specific heats for quantum solids) and >indirectly contributed to (every time thermodynamics uses quantum theory) ? > >Not quantum mechanics, which he helped create? Whose very nature was formed >by Einstein's arguments, to this very day? > >Not the laser, the theoretical groundwork of which was laid down directly by >Einstein? > >Not particle physics, which exists only because of Einstein? Not the >proton/anti-proton beam cancer therapies which exist only because of special >relativity? > >You don't seem to have thought this through too much. when are you going to say something intelligent? Henry Wilson... ........Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
From: Androcles on 31 May 2010 19:01 "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:s4b806l174ko587e5kqstuors06a4va3tc(a)4ax.com... | On Sun, 30 May 2010 23:04:56 +0100, "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> | wrote: | | > | >"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message | >news:blm506dr7d6bdgnlblongqane9bk0o1m67(a)4ax.com... | > | >| De Sitter used the wrong velocities because he knew nothing about | >ADoppler. | > | >Nor does anyone else. Provide an equation instead of a word and then we can | >all laugh. | | The equation is the same as that used to calculate brightness variation but | with the additional factor W. | Produce the equation used to calculate brightness variation. That would be in the form: d(brightness)/dt = function( intrinsic brightness, [fill in variables]) Perhaps it might be easier to produce an equation in the form brightness = some function(time, [fill in variables]) instead of worrying about its derivative. (Just cutting you some slack.) | I'll show you. | | A source is moving at 'v' towards an observer O at distance D and is | accelerating at 'a'. a = ?? The task is to calculate the amount of 'photon bunching' | at the observer. | Let N photons be emitted in time t. The last one travels at (c+v+at) wrt O. | | The first photon reaches O in time D/(c+v) seconds. The last in D/(c+v+at) | Ah... so if t = period, what then? | The difference in arrival times is ~ D(at/c^2) ...(ignoring small terms) | So photon arrival rate is increased by the factor Da/c^2. Ignore small terms? What happened to t = D/(c+v) ? | So much for brightness variation...That is the equation we effectively use in | our computer simulations. Do we? Funny, it isn't what *I* use. | ********************** | Now, individual photons should do something similar since they are emitted over | a finite time interval dt. Period is finite. dt = period? | Consider a photon as a long length of sinewave. If I have to consider a photon as a length of sinewave then it has two times, one where it passes a point in space at the front and one when it passes the same point at the back. No fuckin' way will I consider that. A photon is a point particle like a spinning wheel is a point particle, and it passes two points in space at the same time. We all know a wheel isn't a point, but its centre is. Provide an equation instead of a word and then we can all laugh.
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 31 May 2010 19:49
On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 00:01:44 +0100, "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > >"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message >news:s4b806l174ko587e5kqstuors06a4va3tc(a)4ax.com... >| On Sun, 30 May 2010 23:04:56 +0100, "Androcles" >| >Nor does anyone else. Provide an equation instead of a word and then we >can >| >all laugh. >| >| The equation is the same as that used to calculate brightness variation >but >| with the additional factor W. >| > >Produce the equation used to calculate brightness variation. >That would be in the form: >d(brightness)/dt = function( intrinsic brightness, [fill in variables]) Obviously you didn't understand my version of the Ritz/Sekerin equation. Have another look. >Perhaps it might be easier to produce an equation in the form >brightness = some function(time, [fill in variables]) >instead of worrying about its derivative. (Just cutting you some slack.) > > >| I'll show you. >| >| A source is moving at 'v' towards an observer O at distance D and is >| accelerating at 'a'. > >a = ?? > >The task is to calculate the amount of 'photon bunching' >| at the observer. >| Let N photons be emitted in time t. The last one travels at (c+v+at) wrt >O. >| >| The first photon reaches O in time D/(c+v) seconds. The last in D/(c+v+at) >| >Ah... so if t = period, what then? > >| The difference in arrival times is ~ D(at/c^2) ...(ignoring small terms) >| So photon arrival rate is increased by the factor Da/c^2. > >Ignore small terms? What happened to t = D/(c+v) ? basic algebra...you work it out. ....like a good pommie engineer... >| So much for brightness variation...That is the equation we effectively use >in >| our computer simulations. > >Do we? Funny, it isn't what *I* use. It is there. >| ********************** >| Now, individual photons should do something similar since they are emitted >over >| a finite time interval dt. > >Period is finite. >dt = period? It has been estimated that photons take up to ~100ns to be emitted. >| Consider a photon as a long length of sinewave. > >If I have to consider a photon as a length of sinewave then it has two >times, >one where it passes a point in space at the front and one when it passes >the same point at the back. >No fuckin' way will I consider that. A photon is a point particle like a >spinning >wheel is a point particle, and it passes two points in space at the same >time. >We all know a wheel isn't a point, but its centre is. A photon isn't a wheel >Provide an equation instead of a word and then we can all laugh. I provided the well known equation. Henry Wilson... ........Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space. |