Properties of a preferred frame, an inertial frame in SR and
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 28 Jul 2010 15:32 On Jul 28, 2:01 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > >On Jul 27, 9:18 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > >wrote: > >> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > >> >On Jul 26, 3:25 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> >> 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. > >No idiot...the original source's wavelength is not changed during > >transit. For example if the original source is sodium with a wavlength > >of 589 nm. Then the speed of incoming light is determined as follows: > >c'=(measured incoming frequency of sodium light)(589 nm) > > That is so much gobbledygook...and conflicts with measurements. > > >What this mean is that the new wavelength measured by the grating is > >from a new light source in the grating's frame....the telescope that > >collects the incoming sodium light. > > What if there is no telescope? Simply a source of sodium light and > a diffraction grating in relativisic motion wrt each other? Seto will tell you that any experiment that he's not familiar with already has never been done. Seto is an idiot.
From: kenseto on 29 Jul 2010 08:56 On Jul 28, 10:09 am, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 28, 11:59 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > No idiot...the original source's wavelength is not changed during > > transit. For example if the original source is sodium with a wavlength > > of 589 nm. Then the speed of incoming light is determined as follows: > > c'=(measured incoming frequency of sodium light)(589 nm) > > What this mean is that the new wavelength measured by the grating is > > from a new light source in the grating's frame....the telescope that > > collects the incoming sodium light. > > Are you saying that slower-than-c light comes in one end of a > telescope (with a lower frequency but the same wavelength) and then > magically the telescope emits light with that same lower frequency but > with a LONGER wavelength at speed c? I thought that you were not going to respond to my posts any more...so were you just lying??? The incoming light becomes a new light source in the grating's frame and the grating defines a new wavelength for this new light source. The reason why this new light source (the telescope)in combination with frequency gives light speed equal to c is because the source and the grating are in the same state of absolute motion. In order to determine the arrival speed of light the universal wavelength of the original source must be used. For example if the original source is sodium then 589 nm is the universal wavelength of sodium.
From: kenseto on 29 Jul 2010 08:59 On Jul 28, 11:08 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 28, 8:49 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 27, 8:23 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. > > > Hey idiot the grating will measure the wavelength for light in its own > > frame. The telescope that collect the incoming light become the new > > source in the grating's frame. > > Read what I wrote. There is no telescope needed to measure the shift. > There doesn't have to be ANYTHING between the source and the grating. That irrelevant....the grating treats any light passing through it as light in its frame. Ken Seto > > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > 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 -- 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: kenseto on 29 Jul 2010 09:02 On Jul 28, 3:01 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > >On Jul 27, 9:18 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > >wrote: > >> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > >> >On Jul 26, 3:25 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> >> 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. > >No idiot...the original source's wavelength is not changed during > >transit. For example if the original source is sodium with a wavlength > >of 589 nm. Then the speed of incoming light is determined as follows: > >c'=(measured incoming frequency of sodium light)(589 nm) > > That is so much gobbledygook...and conflicts with measurements. > > >What this mean is that the new wavelength measured by the grating is > >from a new light source in the grating's frame....the telescope that > >collects the incoming sodium light. > > What if there is no telescope? Simply a source of sodium light and > a diffraction grating in relativisic motion wrt each other? That's irrelevant....the grating treats any light passing through it as light from its own frame. - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Sam Wormley on 29 Jul 2010 09:27
On 7/29/10 7:59 AM, kenseto wrote: > the grating treats any light passing through it as > light in its frame. > > Ken Seto Diffraction Grating http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction_grating#Theory_of_operation |