Properties of a preferred frame, an inertial frame in SR and
in [Physics]
|
From: kenseto on 26 Jul 2010 14:17 On Jul 25, 10:25 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > >On Jul 24, 11:05 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > >wrote: > >> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > >> >> 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). > > Well, if you want to claim that something that is not detectable and has > absolutely no effects on ordinary matter or energy is there, you are free > to say so of course, just as I am free to claim the room I am in is full > of invisible pink elephants that nobody can see, hear or otherwise detect.. > But we know what Occam's Razor has to say about things like that. > Einstein, too, when he stated his work would not involve the lumiferous > aether. The aether is detected everyday....the fields are stresses in the aether. > > >>> 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 > > it involves the relativity of simultaneity, or in other words, the > synchronization of two separated clocks requires two-way lightspeed > communication between them. Relativity of simultaneity is bogus. Besides it violates the isotropy of the speed of light in all frames. > > >> 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. > > The wavelength of a frequency shifted photon changes in inverse proportion > to its frequency, so its speed (frequency * wavelength) is *still* c. No.... c'=/= c c'=(frequency)(universal wavelength of the source) For example if the source is sodium..... the universal wavelength of sodium is 589 nm. Therefore the arrival speed of incoming sodium light is: c'=(measured incoming frequency)(589nm) >For > example, a photon with a 600 GHz frequency when emitted by a star whose > redshift from Earth is so large that it has a 300 GHz frequency upon > arrival on Earth, will have a wavelength of about 0.5 mm upon emission. > Upon arrival on earth it will have a wavelength of about 1.0 mm. Guess > what. At both the source and the Earth, its speed is the frequency * > wavelength, and in both cases it's c! In this case you must use the original wavelength of the source to determine the arriving speed of the star light. (.5mm) When you do that the arriving speed is 1/2c. > > So once again, since the speed of the unshifted photon is c, and the > speed of the frequency shifted photon is c, the difference is always 0, > so what you call "absolute motion" is always 0. No....c'=1/2c > > Since the V_a term is always zero, your "absolute motion" concept, which > must always be zero, is a pretty useless concept. No idiot....V_a=1/2c > > >> 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. > > Nope, it was *always* measured to be c, before the redefinition. No idiot...physicists refuse to measure the one-way speed of light using physical ruler. The reason is that the value for the one-way speed of light is distance dependent. They invented the circular definition for the meter to insure that the speed of light is c by definition. >The > redefinition makes perfect sense, why make the definition of a fundamental > dimension of physics (length) in terms of some physical property or other, > when you can define it *more accurately* in terms of another fundamental > dimension of physics (time) and a universal constant (speed of light)? No it does not make sense at all.....not when you use light speed to define light speed. It is extremely circular. Ken Seto
From: kenseto on 26 Jul 2010 14:21 On Jul 25, 10:49 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > >On Jul 24, 9:49 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> The speed of light, a fundamental constant of the universe, does not > >> need any human originated units to exist. It is a constant, Seto! All > >> observer measure is speed the same, c! > >Hey idiot....how can the speed of light be a fundamental constant when > >the clock second use to measure light speed is not a universal > >interval of time?? > > But it is. No it is not....the passage of A's clock second corresponds to the passage of 1/gamma second in B's frame. > > >....for example the passage of a clcok second in A's > >frame corresponds to the passage of 1/gamma second in B's frame. > > Wrong. A simply measures B's clock as running slow as far as A's clock > is concerned. In A's frame, A's clock is just fine. > > Similarly, B simply measures A's clock as running slow as far as B's clock > is concerned. In B's frame, B's clock is just fine. No....the following possibilities exists when comparing two clocks A and B: 1. A run faster than B then B runs slower than A. 2. B run faster than A then A runs slower than B.
From: kenseto on 26 Jul 2010 14:28 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 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 -
From: PD on 26 Jul 2010 15:25 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. 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 -
From: Sam Wormley on 26 Jul 2010 17:13
On 7/26/10 3:51 AM, JT wrote: > Of course Sam but would it not be nice if the ***AIRHEADS*** used > bananas of same length in their gedankens, before they draw the > faulthy conclusion that light moves invariant at c thru space? > Perhaps you should read up on measurements of the speed of light. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#Measurement |