Properties of a preferred frame, an inertial frame in SR and
in [Physics]
|
From: kenseto on 28 Jul 2010 09:59 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=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. 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. Ken Seto >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.
From: artful on 28 Jul 2010 10:09 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?
From: PD on 28 Jul 2010 11:08 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. > > 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 -
From: Michael Moroney on 28 Jul 2010 15:01 kenseto <kenseto(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?
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. |