Moving Mirror Proves Einstein Wrong
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: LHC marries Aunt-Al
Next: SR and a lightbulb
From: spudnik on 31 Dec 2009 17:21 there is no absolute vacuum for the mirror to "go at v," without creating a shockwave (local speed of sound). just say, Duh! thus quoth: Papers of Hannes Olof Gosta Alfven, Nobel Prize winning astrophysicist who contributed to significant advances in the fields of magnetohydrodynamics, plasma physics, geophysics, thermonuclear reaction, and cosmology. He shared the Nobel Prize for Physics with Louis Neel in 1970. ... He was also an advocate of nuclear armaments destruction, working actively with other scientists such as Harold Urey to prevent nuclear proliferation and conflict. Among Alfven's teaching positions were posts at the Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, and the University of California, San Diego. The papers span the years 1945 to 1991 and are organized into ten series: ... The collection contains significant correspondence with Alfven's fellow scientists, including ... Harold Urey, ... The collection focuses primarily on Alfven's time as Professor of Applied Physics at the University of California, San Diego, but nearly every work from his immense bibliography is represented, many in draft forms. ... Since 1967, he served as Professor of Applied Physics at the University of California, San Diego, spending six months of the year at UCSD and six months at the Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm. For his research in magnetohydrodynamics and plasma physics, Alfven shared the 1970 Nobel Prize in Physics with Louis Eugene Felix Neel. ... .... ORIGIN OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM (1959) with C.G. Falthammar; ... THE TALE OF THE BIG COMPUTER (1968) under the pen name of Olof Johannesson; ATOM, MAN AND THE UNIVERSE (1969); ... and STRUCTURE AND EVOLUTIONARY HISTORY OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM (1975) with Gustaf Arrhenius. .... Hannes Alfven pioneered the development of MHD, the study of the motion of an electrically conducting fluid interacting with magnetic fields, and, in particular, the subject of plasma physics, the branch of MHD in which the fluid under study is a highly ionized gas consisting of nearly equal numbers of positively and negatively charged particles. Alfven was chiefly concerned with plasmas in stars, in the geomagnetic field, and in interplanetary and interstellar space, but his theories were basic to the study of laboratory plasmas encountered in the development of controlled thermonucelar fusion. More specifically, Alfven applied his analyses to such phenomena as geomagnetic storms, the aurora, the Van Allen radiation belts, sunspots, and the evolution of the solar system. His results have been seminal not only in designing thermonuclear reactors, but also in the development of astrophysics, space science, and geophysics. ... 2 26 Antimatter, Quasi-Stellar Objects and the Evolution of Galaxies, 1969. --Brit's hate Shakespeare, Why? http://wlym.com/campaigner/8011.pdf --Madame Rice is a Riceist, How?
From: spudnik on 31 Dec 2009 17:31 there is no vacuum for the red to shift in, although Alfven had postulated that only matter-antimatter annhialation was the only possible source of energy to expand Universe -- I just read! just say, Duh! 2 26 Antimatter, Quasi-Stellar Objects and the Evolution of Galaxies, 1969. --Brit's hate Shakespeare, Why? http://wlym.com/campaigner/8011.pdf --Madame Rice is a Riceist, How?
From: Inertial on 31 Dec 2009 19:26 "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:5p3qj5l7efgqu0svat5rv3fjh661jbul5v(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 10:06:57 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >>On Dec 30, 7:36 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 15:20:35 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >On Dec 29, 2:14 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >>> >> This experiment involves a light source and a mirror. >>> >>> >> The source emits pulses of light towards the mirror, which is moving >>> >> at v >>> >> towards it, as measured in the source frame. >>> >>> >> According to SR, both the incoming and reflected pulses move at c in >>> >> the source >>> >> frame. They 'close on' the mirror at c+v and leave it at c-v. >>> >>> >> Can any Einstein supporter show the world how, under these >>> >> circumstances, the >>> >> incident and reflected speeds of the pulses can be equal when >>> >> measured in the >>> >> mirror frame. >>> >>> >Yes. In the frame of the source, the speed of light is c as it >>> >approaches the mirror. >>> >If you want to know what the speed of this same signal is in the >>> >mirror frame, you do the appropriate velocity transform: >>> >(c+v)/(1+cv/c^2) = c(1+v/c)/(1+v/c) = c. >>> >>> >In the frame of the source, the speed of light is c as it departs form >>> >the mirror. >>> >If you want to know what the speed of this same signal is in the >>> >mirror frame, you do the appropriate velocity transform: >>> >(c-v)/(1-cv/c^2) = c(1-v/c)/(1-v/c) = c. >>> >>> >Now, I don't know why you expected that if the closing speed is c+v in >>> >one frame, then the closing speed should be c+v in any other frame. >>> >>> Well now you have to tell me how they can be UNEQUAL in the source >>> frame....because P1 says they must be the same. >> >>No, it doesn't. The speed of light as measured in the source frame is >>c, as I said above. >> >>What you noted is that the *closing speed* between the mirror and the >>light, as measured in the source frame, is c+v and c-v. P1 does NOT >>say that the *closing* speed between light and another object must be >>c in any frame. >> >>Please learn what the postulate actually says. > > We are discussing the time taken for a light pulse to go from points A to > B, > which are rigidly connected. In the points' frame, the pulse takes the > same to > go from B to A. Yeup > Are you trying to tell me that this condition changes just because a lot > of > different observers start moving around all over the universe. Nope But other observers will disagree about the time taken as measured by them This is basic stuff. Your current line of non-thought also refutes the PoR in simple classical Newtonian physics. Look at velocities. Can you find the equivalent argument there? Or do you need me to spoon feed you?
From: Inertial on 31 Dec 2009 22:46 "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:jslqj5ldkqjlk8d9hvh5qtcsnbk5lg7v3o(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 11:26:18 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message >>news:5p3qj5l7efgqu0svat5rv3fjh661jbul5v(a)4ax.com... >>> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 10:06:57 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>On Dec 30, 7:36 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 15:20:35 -0800 (PST), PD >>>>> <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >On Dec 29, 2:14 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >>>>> >> This experiment involves a light source and a mirror. >>>>> >>>>> >> The source emits pulses of light towards the mirror, which is >>>>> >> moving >>>>> >> at v >>>>> >> towards it, as measured in the source frame. >>>>> >>>>> >> According to SR, both the incoming and reflected pulses move at c >>>>> >> in >>>>> >> the source >>>>> >> frame. They 'close on' the mirror at c+v and leave it at c-v. >>>>> >>>>> >> Can any Einstein supporter show the world how, under these >>>>> >> circumstances, the >>>>> >> incident and reflected speeds of the pulses can be equal when >>>>> >> measured in the >>>>> >> mirror frame. >>>>> >>>>> >Yes. In the frame of the source, the speed of light is c as it >>>>> >approaches the mirror. >>>>> >If you want to know what the speed of this same signal is in the >>>>> >mirror frame, you do the appropriate velocity transform: >>>>> >(c+v)/(1+cv/c^2) = c(1+v/c)/(1+v/c) = c. >>>>> >>>>> >In the frame of the source, the speed of light is c as it departs >>>>> >form >>>>> >the mirror. >>>>> >If you want to know what the speed of this same signal is in the >>>>> >mirror frame, you do the appropriate velocity transform: >>>>> >(c-v)/(1-cv/c^2) = c(1-v/c)/(1-v/c) = c. >>>>> >>>>> >Now, I don't know why you expected that if the closing speed is c+v >>>>> >in >>>>> >one frame, then the closing speed should be c+v in any other frame. >>>>> >>>>> Well now you have to tell me how they can be UNEQUAL in the source >>>>> frame....because P1 says they must be the same. >>>> >>>>No, it doesn't. The speed of light as measured in the source frame is >>>>c, as I said above. >>>> >>>>What you noted is that the *closing speed* between the mirror and the >>>>light, as measured in the source frame, is c+v and c-v. P1 does NOT >>>>say that the *closing* speed between light and another object must be >>>>c in any frame. >>>> >>>>Please learn what the postulate actually says. >>> >>> We are discussing the time taken for a light pulse to go from points A >>> to >>> B, >>> which are rigidly connected. In the points' frame, the pulse takes the >>> same to >>> go from B to A. >> >>Yeup >> >>> Are you trying to tell me that this condition changes just because a lot >>> of >>> different observers start moving around all over the universe. >> >>Nope >> >>But other observers will disagree about the time taken as measured by them > > that is not important. Yes .. it is > The actual times (which are equal in mirror frame) can have a different > value > in each frame if you want to believe in SR contractions. Yeup .. no problem with that > That does not mean they go from being equal to being unequal in different > frames Yeup .. no problem with that >>This is basic stuff. > > It IS. That's why I can't understand why you are having trouble with it. You're the one confused, old fart. >>Your current line of non-thought also refutes the PoR in simple classical >>Newtonian physics. Look at velocities. Can you find the equivalent >>argument there? Or do you need me to spoon feed you? > > It does not...because in NM, the light reflects back from the mirror at > c+2v > wrt the source. That's what Newton got wrong. So .. you can't see how your argument about the PoR saying equal values must be equal for all observers is wrong. Didn't think you would. That would require thought and honesty on your part .. things sorely missing from your posts.
From: Inertial on 31 Dec 2009 23:03
"eric gisse" <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:hhjmjo$lku$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > >> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 14:54:08 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >>> >>>[...] >>> >>>>>Really? The laws of physics only apply to light? >>>>> >>>>>Are you SURE? >>>> >>>> That's what you people are trying to make out even if you aren't aware >>>> of the fact. >>> >>>No, Ralph, this is simply the latest way you have made yourself >>>misunderstand relativity. I suppose it is an improvement over 'tick >>>faeries'. >>> >>>> >>>> Newton's law of relativity applies to everything that contains L/T. >>> >>>I don't recall that distinction ever being made. Could you show where >>>that's the case? >> >> Christ! Surely you know that much... > > In about 5 years of university, and about a thousand pages of classical > mechanics textbooks not once was this mentioned. Perhaps you could tell me > which of your books on the subject says what you claim so I could read it > for myself? Maybe this is what he means. The principle of relativity dates back to Galileo. However, in classical physics it is usually combined with Newton's laws of motion, which all happen to involve terms in them somewhere that have at least an L/T, that the apply in the same way in all inertial frames of reference. This is often called Galilean Relativity. In SR, the principle of relativity is extended (not reduced) to cover all laws of physics, not just the laws of motion, as they apply in inertial frames of reference. In particular, the constancy of the speed of light, irrespective of the motion of the source, is one of the things that SR postulates is the case for all inertial frames of reference. |