Properties of a preferred frame, an inertial frame in SR and
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 27 Jul 2010 10:17 On Jul 26, 5:06 pm, JT <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 26 Juli, 23:47, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 26, 4:06 am, JT <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 25 Juli, 20:51, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On 7/25/10 1:31 PM, JT wrote: > > > > > > On 25 Juli, 18:25, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >> On 7/25/10 8:42 AM, JT wrote: > > > > > >>> On 25 Juli, 15:40, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >>>> On 7/25/10 6:21 AM, JT wrote: > > > > > >>>>> ... if there really is any such creature like time dilation by Lorentz gamma > > > > >>>>> factor which is highly suspectfull. > > > > > >>>> Time dilation measurement are made in supernovae explosions, in > > > > >>>> cosmic ray muons, etc. Do you not read the literature, JT? > > > > > >>>> Physics FAQ: What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity? > > > > >>>> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html > > > > > >>> Bwahahahaha you are funny Sam. > > > > > >>> JT > > > > > >> Glad you find verification of time dilation so funny, JT! Enjoy your > > > > >> ignorance. > > > > > > Well if you measure it with a banana i guess you measured banana > > > > > units. > > > > > > JT > > > > > Actually a banana can be used for DISTANCE measurements, whereas > > > > TIME measure is the way to go for time dilation.- Dölj citerad text - > > > > > - Visa citerad text - > > > > Actually the second part is wrong to Sam you cannot measure time > > > dilation, the only way to prove time dilation is by comparisson by > > > synched clocks and notice a discrepancy between them. > > > > JT > > > JT, earlier you made an accurate comment that you don't know the first > > thing about physics. > > You said, however, that you were a self-proclaimed genius at logic. > > But the statement above is not a matter of logic. It is a matter of > > you being completely ignorant about how measurements are actually > > made. So your statement that your suggestion "is the only way" is just > > a comment born of ignorance. > > > I suggest you get really careful about making statements that follow > > LOGICALLY from agreed premises, and not make foolish statements about > > non-facts.- Dölj citerad text - > > > - Visa citerad text - > > Well you should learn about logical equivalence between sets. > > JT What about it? Two sets are logically equivalent if the set-membership rules are equivalent, meaning that the rules are satisfied by the same members in both sets. Now, as for your business about "banana units", you have this goofball notation about what measurement units are supposed to do -- provide an absolute measure independent of observer. That is NOT the set- membership rule for measurement units or measurement standards. What is true is that measurement units are defined in terms of a LOCAL physical process or phenomenon. If you will look at NIST standards, you will see that this is in fact the case. So then, the definition of meters or the definition of seconds for different observers ARE logically equivalent, because the same set- membership rules apply. They're just not the membership rules you'd hoped were in place. Please don't screw around in a domain you know nothing about, and then retreat to something you think you know something about. You may find out you know less about either one than you thought.
From: kenseto on 27 Jul 2010 18:49 On Jul 26, 3:25 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 26, 1:28 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 26, 11:49 am, JT <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 26 Juli, 16:45, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 26, 4:54 am, JT <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On 25 Juli, 15:01, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 24, 11:05 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > > > > > > > >On Jul 24, 6:34 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > > > > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > >> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > > > > > > > >> >On Jul 23, 10:42 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > > > > > > > >> >wrote: > > > > > > > >> >> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > > > > > > > >> >> >> Nevertheless, Ken, if there is a difference in the absolute motion > > > > > > > >> >> >> from top to bottom, then this means that there is a relative motion. > > > > > > > >> >> >No absolute motion is that motion of an object wrt light. At the > > > > > > > >> >> >bottom of the buidling the source is at a standard frequency....light > > > > > > > >> >> >from the bottom to the top shows a frequency shift that means that the > > > > > > > >> >> >top is in a different state of absolute motion. > > > > > > > > >> >> If there is a difference in motion between two objects, there is *always* > > > > > > > >> >> a relative motion between them. > > > > > > > >> >Helloooo....idiot, absolute motion is that motion of an object wrt > > > > > > > >> >light. > > > > > > > > >> OK, so everything in the universe has an absolute motion velocity of c. > > > > > > > >> Sounds like a pretty useless concept, because light always moves at c > > > > > > > >> relative to all observers. > > > > > > > >No....the speed of light in the aether is c. > > > > > > > > Well, since the speed of light in a vacuum is c, we must conclude that > > > > > > > what you call "aether" is really the vacuum, therefore you are stating the > > > > > > > aether doesn't exist. I'll add "aether" to the list of words you've > > > > > > > redefined. > > > > > > > Uou are an idiot....the aether occupies all of space (vacuum). > > > > > > > > > The absolute motion of an > > > > > > > >object is V_a which is less than c. > > > > > > > > Well, yes, any object with mass cannot move at c. > > > > > > > > > The relativevelocity of an object > > > > > > > >wrt light is c-/+V_a > > > > > > > > Nope, all observers always measure the speed of light in a vacuum as c. > > > > > > > This is a fundamental basis of physics, and has been measured to high > > > > > > > accuracy for years. > > > > > > > Hey idiot the one-way speed of light never been measured. The reason > > > > > > is that the value for the one-way speed of light is distance > > > > > > dependent. The speed of light is a defined constant ratio as follows: > > > > > > 1-light-second/1 second. > > > > > > > > So, in order for your statement to be true, we can only conclude the > > > > > > > variable you call V_a must always be zero, therefore the "absolute motion" > > > > > > > of all objects is zero, so "absolute motion" is a meaningless term. > > > > > > > No idiot....frequency shift between the source and the detector is > > > > > > indication of difference in absolute motion between the source and the > > > > > > detector. > > > > > > > > In fact the reason why the meter has been redefined in terms of c is > > > > > > > because of the fact that c is a fundamental constant of the universe, like > > > > > > > h, or G, or alpha or several others. > > > > > > > No the speed of light is defined to be c to fix SR. the mesure one-way > > > > > > speed of light using physical ruler does not have a constant value of > > > > > > c.....it is distance dependent. > > > > > > > >The earlier definitions of the meter > > > > > > > (the length of some bar in Paris, or the number of waves of a krypton > > > > > > > atom) means that trying to measure a velocity has two sources of error, > > > > > > > the error in the definition of a second, and the error in the definition > > > > > > > of a meter. Since c is a fundamental constant of the universe, it makes > > > > > > > sense to define the meter and second in terms of each other. Since we can > > > > > > > measure the second to better accuracy than the length of a bar in Paris or > > > > > > > even the length of a bunch of wavelengths of krypton light, it makes more > > > > > > > sense to define the meter in terms of the second than the other way > > > > > > > around. > > > > > > > - Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Dölj citerad text - > > > > > > > - Visa citerad text -- Dölj citerad text - > > > > > > > - Visa citerad text - > > > > > > Hello again Ken i am really keen on knowing what received framerates > > > > > at ***earth***, does your IRT > > > > > theory predict for two transmitters leaving earth at 0.3 c respective > > > > > 0.6 c. > > > > > IRT uses the same equation as SRT: > > > > f'=f_o[(1-v/c)/(1+v/c)]^1/2 > > > > For source receding at 0.3c: > > > > f'=24[(1-0.3)/(1+0.3)]^1/2=17.61 FPS > > > > For source receding at 0.6c: > > > > f'=24[(1-0.6)/(1+0.6)]^1/2=12.0 FPS > > > > > > Ooops forgot to say the transmissions is PAL 24 FPS. > > > > > > It is a very interesting subject Ken, so please answer. > > > > > > JT- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Dölj citerad text - > > > > > - Visa citerad text -- Dölj citerad text - > > > > > - Visa citerad text - > > > > But if SRT use same equation, don't they consider the waves/photons > > > from receding transmission at 0.3 c travel towards earth at higher > > > velocity then the waves from receding transmission at 0.6c. > > > Yes I agree with you. The wavelength does not change > > Diffraction gratings measure wavelength DIRECTLY, almost as directly > as if you did it with a micrometer. > Measurements with diffraction gratings show that the wavelength does > in fact change. Yes the grating measure the wavelength of sources in its own frame. The incoming light becomes a new light source in the grating frame and the grating defines a new wavelength for this new light source. Ken Seto > > > You can do this with absolutely NOTHING between the grating and the > source. > > > > > so the arriving > > speed of light arriving at earth is as follows: > > For source receding at 0.3c: > > c'=17.61*L > > For source receding ar 0.6c: > > c'=12*L > > Where L=universal wavelength of both sources. > > > Ken Seto > > > > Oh i forgot they have their own name for relative velocity at 0.7c > > > respective 0.4c "closing speed" bwahahah it sound so much fancier then > > > the real term relative velocity. > > > > So when they study the real geometry relationship they must fall back > > > to Euclidian space using a Cartesian cordinate system it is indeed > > > hilarious bwhahahahah. > > > > But of course both transmission at earth will be ****calculated**** to > > > travel at c by the SAM and PD the dafts of SR. > > > > JT- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 27 Jul 2010 20:23 On Jul 27, 5:49 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Jul 26, 3:25 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 26, 1:28 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 26, 11:49 am, JT <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On 26 Juli, 16:45, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 26, 4:54 am, JT <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 25 Juli, 15:01, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jul 24, 11:05 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > > > > > > > > >On Jul 24, 6:34 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > > > > > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > >> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > > > > > > > > >> >On Jul 23, 10:42 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > > > > > > > > >> >wrote: > > > > > > > > >> >> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > > > > > > > > >> >> >> Nevertheless, Ken, if there is a difference in the absolute motion > > > > > > > > >> >> >> from top to bottom, then this means that there is a relative motion. > > > > > > > > >> >> >No absolute motion is that motion of an object wrt light. At the > > > > > > > > >> >> >bottom of the buidling the source is at a standard frequency....light > > > > > > > > >> >> >from the bottom to the top shows a frequency shift that means that the > > > > > > > > >> >> >top is in a different state of absolute motion. > > > > > > > > > >> >> If there is a difference in motion between two objects, there is *always* > > > > > > > > >> >> a relative motion between them. > > > > > > > > >> >Helloooo....idiot, absolute motion is that motion of an object wrt > > > > > > > > >> >light. > > > > > > > > > >> OK, so everything in the universe has an absolute motion velocity of c. > > > > > > > > >> Sounds like a pretty useless concept, because light always moves at c > > > > > > > > >> relative to all observers. > > > > > > > > >No....the speed of light in the aether is c. > > > > > > > > > Well, since the speed of light in a vacuum is c, we must conclude that > > > > > > > > what you call "aether" is really the vacuum, therefore you are stating the > > > > > > > > aether doesn't exist. I'll add "aether" to the list of words you've > > > > > > > > redefined. > > > > > > > > Uou are an idiot....the aether occupies all of space (vacuum).. > > > > > > > > > > The absolute motion of an > > > > > > > > >object is V_a which is less than c. > > > > > > > > > Well, yes, any object with mass cannot move at c. > > > > > > > > > > The relativevelocity of an object > > > > > > > > >wrt light is c-/+V_a > > > > > > > > > Nope, all observers always measure the speed of light in a vacuum as c. > > > > > > > > This is a fundamental basis of physics, and has been measured to high > > > > > > > > accuracy for years. > > > > > > > > Hey idiot the one-way speed of light never been measured. The reason > > > > > > > is that the value for the one-way speed of light is distance > > > > > > > dependent. The speed of light is a defined constant ratio as follows: > > > > > > > 1-light-second/1 second. > > > > > > > > > So, in order for your statement to be true, we can only conclude the > > > > > > > > variable you call V_a must always be zero, therefore the "absolute motion" > > > > > > > > of all objects is zero, so "absolute motion" is a meaningless term. > > > > > > > > No idiot....frequency shift between the source and the detector is > > > > > > > indication of difference in absolute motion between the source and the > > > > > > > detector. > > > > > > > > > In fact the reason why the meter has been redefined in terms of c is > > > > > > > > because of the fact that c is a fundamental constant of the universe, like > > > > > > > > h, or G, or alpha or several others. > > > > > > > > No the speed of light is defined to be c to fix SR. the mesure one-way > > > > > > > speed of light using physical ruler does not have a constant value of > > > > > > > c.....it is distance dependent. > > > > > > > > >The earlier definitions of the meter > > > > > > > > (the length of some bar in Paris, or the number of waves of a krypton > > > > > > > > atom) means that trying to measure a velocity has two sources of error, > > > > > > > > the error in the definition of a second, and the error in the definition > > > > > > > > of a meter. Since c is a fundamental constant of the universe, it makes > > > > > > > > sense to define the meter and second in terms of each other.. Since we can > > > > > > > > measure the second to better accuracy than the length of a bar in Paris or > > > > > > > > even the length of a bunch of wavelengths of krypton light, it makes more > > > > > > > > sense to define the meter in terms of the second than the other way > > > > > > > > around. > > > > > > > > - Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Dölj citerad text - > > > > > > > > - Visa citerad text -- Dölj citerad text - > > > > > > > > - Visa citerad text - > > > > > > > Hello again Ken i am really keen on knowing what received framerates > > > > > > at ***earth***, does your IRT > > > > > > theory predict for two transmitters leaving earth at 0.3 c respective > > > > > > 0.6 c. > > > > > > IRT uses the same equation as SRT: > > > > > f'=f_o[(1-v/c)/(1+v/c)]^1/2 > > > > > For source receding at 0.3c: > > > > > f'=24[(1-0.3)/(1+0.3)]^1/2=17.61 FPS > > > > > For source receding at 0.6c: > > > > > f'=24[(1-0.6)/(1+0.6)]^1/2=12.0 FPS > > > > > > > Ooops forgot to say the transmissions is PAL 24 FPS. > > > > > > > It is a very interesting subject Ken, so please answer. > > > > > > > JT- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Dölj citerad text - > > > > > > - Visa citerad text -- Dölj citerad text - > > > > > > - Visa citerad text - > > > > > But if SRT use same equation, don't they consider the waves/photons > > > > from receding transmission at 0.3 c travel towards earth at higher > > > > velocity then the waves from receding transmission at 0.6c. > > > > Yes I agree with you. The wavelength does not change > > > Diffraction gratings measure wavelength DIRECTLY, almost as directly > > as if you did it with a micrometer. > > Measurements with diffraction gratings show that the wavelength does > > in fact change. > > Yes the grating measure the wavelength of sources in its own frame. > The incoming light becomes a new light source The light *comes from* a light source (the star). Light is not its own source. Idiot. > in the grating frame and > the grating defines a new wavelength for this new light source. > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > You can do this with absolutely NOTHING between the grating and the > > source. > > > > so the arriving > > > speed of light arriving at earth is as follows: > > > For source receding at 0.3c: > > > c'=17.61*L > > > For source receding ar 0.6c: > > > c'=12*L > > > Where L=universal wavelength of both sources. > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > Oh i forgot they have their own name for relative velocity at 0.7c > > > > respective 0.4c "closing speed" bwahahah it sound so much fancier then > > > > the real term relative velocity. > > > > > So when they study the real geometry relationship they must fall back > > > > to Euclidian space using a Cartesian cordinate system it is indeed > > > > hilarious bwhahahahah. > > > > > But of course both transmission at earth will be ****calculated**** to > > > > travel at c by the SAM and PD the dafts of SR. > > > > > JT- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -
From: BURT on 27 Jul 2010 20:38 On Jul 27, 5:23 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 27, 5:49 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 26, 3:25 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 26, 1:28 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 26, 11:49 am, JT <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On 26 Juli, 16:45, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 26, 4:54 am, JT <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 25 Juli, 15:01, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Jul 24, 11:05 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > > > > > > > > > >On Jul 24, 6:34 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > > > > > > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > > > > > > > > > >> >On Jul 23, 10:42 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > > > > > > > > > >> >wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> >> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> Nevertheless, Ken, if there is a difference in the absolute motion > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> from top to bottom, then this means that there is a relative motion. > > > > > > > > > >> >> >No absolute motion is that motion of an object wrt light. At the > > > > > > > > > >> >> >bottom of the buidling the source is at a standard frequency....light > > > > > > > > > >> >> >from the bottom to the top shows a frequency shift that means that the > > > > > > > > > >> >> >top is in a different state of absolute motion. > > > > > > > > > > >> >> If there is a difference in motion between two objects, there is *always* > > > > > > > > > >> >> a relative motion between them. > > > > > > > > > >> >Helloooo....idiot, absolute motion is that motion of an object wrt > > > > > > > > > >> >light. > > > > > > > > > > >> OK, so everything in the universe has an absolute motion velocity of c. > > > > > > > > > >> Sounds like a pretty useless concept, because light always moves at c > > > > > > > > > >> relative to all observers. > > > > > > > > > >No....the speed of light in the aether is c. > > > > > > > > > > Well, since the speed of light in a vacuum is c, we must conclude that > > > > > > > > > what you call "aether" is really the vacuum, therefore you are stating the > > > > > > > > > aether doesn't exist. I'll add "aether" to the list of words you've > > > > > > > > > redefined. > > > > > > > > > Uou are an idiot....the aether occupies all of space (vacuum). > > > > > > > > > > > The absolute motion of an > > > > > > > > > >object is V_a which is less than c. > > > > > > > > > > Well, yes, any object with mass cannot move at c. > > > > > > > > > > > The relativevelocity of an object > > > > > > > > > >wrt light is c-/+V_a > > > > > > > > > > Nope, all observers always measure the speed of light in a vacuum as c. > > > > > > > > > This is a fundamental basis of physics, and has been measured to high > > > > > > > > > accuracy for years. > > > > > > > > > Hey idiot the one-way speed of light never been measured. The reason > > > > > > > > is that the value for the one-way speed of light is distance > > > > > > > > dependent. The speed of light is a defined constant ratio as follows: > > > > > > > > 1-light-second/1 second. > > > > > > > > > > So, in order for your statement to be true, we can only conclude the > > > > > > > > > variable you call V_a must always be zero, therefore the "absolute motion" > > > > > > > > > of all objects is zero, so "absolute motion" is a meaningless term. > > > > > > > > > No idiot....frequency shift between the source and the detector is > > > > > > > > indication of difference in absolute motion between the source and the > > > > > > > > detector. > > > > > > > > > > In fact the reason why the meter has been redefined in terms of c is > > > > > > > > > because of the fact that c is a fundamental constant of the universe, like > > > > > > > > > h, or G, or alpha or several others. > > > > > > > > > No the speed of light is defined to be c to fix SR. the mesure one-way > > > > > > > > speed of light using physical ruler does not have a constant value of > > > > > > > > c.....it is distance dependent. > > > > > > > > > >The earlier definitions of the meter > > > > > > > > > (the length of some bar in Paris, or the number of waves of a krypton > > > > > > > > > atom) means that trying to measure a velocity has two sources of error, > > > > > > > > > the error in the definition of a second, and the error in the definition > > > > > > > > > of a meter. Since c is a fundamental constant of the universe, it makes > > > > > > > > > sense to define the meter and second in terms of each other. Since we can > > > > > > > > > measure the second to better accuracy than the length of a bar in Paris or > > > > > > > > > even the length of a bunch of wavelengths of krypton light, it makes more > > > > > > > > > sense to define the meter in terms of the second than the other way > > > > > > > > > around. > > > > > > > > > - Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Dölj citerad text - > > > > > > > > > - Visa citerad text -- Dölj citerad text - > > > > > > > > > - Visa citerad text - > > > > > > > > Hello again Ken i am really keen on knowing what received framerates > > > > > > > at ***earth***, does your IRT > > > > > > > theory predict for two transmitters leaving earth at 0.3 c respective > > > > > > > 0.6 c. > > > > > > > IRT uses the same equation as SRT: > > > > > > f'=f_o[(1-v/c)/(1+v/c)]^1/2 > > > > > > For source receding at 0.3c: > > > > > > f'=24[(1-0.3)/(1+0.3)]^1/2=17.61 FPS > > > > > > For source receding at 0.6c: > > > > > > f'=24[(1-0.6)/(1+0.6)]^1/2=12.0 FPS > > > > > > > > Ooops forgot to say the transmissions is PAL 24 FPS. > > > > > > > > It is a very interesting subject Ken, so please answer. > > > > > > > > JT- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Dölj citerad text - > > > > > > > - Visa citerad text -- Dölj citerad text - > > > > > > > - Visa citerad text - > > > > > > But if SRT use same equation, don't they consider the waves/photons > > > > > from receding transmission at 0.3 c travel towards earth at higher > > > > > velocity then the waves from receding transmission at 0.6c. > > > > > Yes I agree with you. The wavelength does not change > > > > Diffraction gratings measure wavelength DIRECTLY, almost as directly > > > as if you did it with a micrometer. > > > Measurements with diffraction gratings show that the wavelength does > > > in fact change. > > > Yes the grating measure the wavelength of sources in its own frame. > > The incoming light becomes a new light source > > The light *comes from* a light source (the star). Light is not its own > source. > > Idiot. > > > > > in the grating frame and > > the grating defines a new wavelength for this new light source. > > > Ken Seto > > > > You can do this with absolutely NOTHING between the grating and the > > > source. > > > > > so the arriving > > > > speed of light arriving at earth is as follows: > > > > For source receding at 0.3c: > > > > c'=17.61*L > > > > For source receding ar 0.6c: > > > > c'=12*L > > > > Where L=universal wavelength of both sources. > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > Oh i forgot they have their own name for relative velocity at 0.7c > > > > > respective 0.4c "closing speed" bwahahah it sound so much fancier then > > > > > the real term relative velocity. > > > > > > So when they study the real geometry relationship they must fall back > > > > > to Euclidian space using a Cartesian cordinate system it is indeed > > > > > hilarious bwhahahahah. > > > > > > But of course both transmission at earth will be ****calculated**** to > > > > > travel at c by the SAM and PD the dafts of SR. > > > > > > JT- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - The unmarked frame of space distance and the motion of light and matter through it should be the prefered frame. Energy can move behind light if you accelerate enough. You could stay ahead of light by leaving it behind in space. But eventually it will catch up. Mitch Raemsch
From: Michael Moroney on 27 Jul 2010 21:18
kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes: >On Jul 26, 3:25=A0pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Jul 26, 1:28=A0pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: >> > > But if SRT use same equation, don't they consider the waves/photons >> > > from receding transmission at 0.3 c travel towards earth at higher >> > > velocity then the waves from receding transmission at 0.6c. >> >> > Yes I agree with you. The wavelength does not change >> >> Diffraction gratings measure wavelength DIRECTLY, almost as directly >> as if you did it with a micrometer. >> Measurements with diffraction gratings show that the wavelength does >> in fact change. >Yes the grating measure the wavelength of sources in its own frame. So you admit a redshifted photon has the longer wavelength of the destination frame. And it also has a new, lower frequency from redshifting. And guess what! If you multiply this new wavelength by the new frequency, you get its speed, which is c! That's because *all* inertial observers measure the speed of light as c. The relative velocity of the source and the observer is irrelevant. (the relative velocity of the source and the observer is relevant to the observed frequency and wavelength, a.k.a. Doppler shift) >The incoming light becomes a new light source in the grating frame and >the grating defines a new wavelength for this new light source. And the new frequency, which is c/wavelength. |