Speed of Light: A universal Constant?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Joan-Claude van Dirk Helps to Trivialize Special Relativity
Next: GOD=G_uv Measure your IQ in 30 seconds
From: Henri Wilson on 17 May 2005 00:14 On Tue, 17 May 2005 00:45:26 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:979i819p74n1rgecd63img63t7i0jjl2ap(a)4ax.com: > >> On Mon, 16 May 2005 14:36:02 +0000 (UTC), bz >> <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >> >>>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>>news:56ag819u1m9oc007dl76ik3pe8vfmt68c7(a)4ax.com: >>> >> >>>>>> The energy and 'frequency' of an absorbed photon depends on it speed >>>>>> relative to the target. >>>>> >>>>>Notice, I said 'energy/frequency/wavelength. Up until now, we have >>>>>disagreed upon this point. >>>> >>>> What does photon 'wavelength' represent? >>> >>>According to your earlier statement, it represents the results of the >>>interaction with a diffraction grating. >>> >>>Under SR, it is closely related to both the energy and the frequency by >>>c and by h respectively. >> >> Let me rephrase my question. >> >> What aspect of an photon is responsible for its apparent possession of a >> characteristic 'wavelength'? >> Until we know this, I cannot answer your question. >> >> My model of a photon is the 'sawtooth one'. > >Mine (consistent with SR) would be a similar to yours except the saw is >rubber. If the source is moving toward the destination, the teeth get pushed >closer together. If the source is moving away from the destination, the teeth >get stretched further apart. That's not what SR says. SR claims they get pushed together whether they are approaching or receding. 'gamma' contains v^2, not v. You obviously don't appreciate the finer points of SRian stupidity. > >> A photon is like a moving saw blade. The rate at which the teeth pass a >> point is its frequency. The distance between teeth is its (fixed) >> wavelength. >> >> Whether or not the teeth move up and down in a kind of standing wave is >> also something to be considered. > >Imagine an omnicient observer located midway between source and destination >and moving at such a velocity so that both 'source' and 'destination' are >either approaching 'observer' at the same velocities or both are receeding >from 'observer' at the same velocities. > >The observer sees the photon doppler shifted by the relative velocity between >him and the source. The destination sees twice the doppler shift as that seen >by the observer. > >Lets say source and destination are both approaching observer. Observer sees >the 'EM helix' of the photon 'compressed' as it leaves source and sees the >'EM helix' of the photon further 'compressed' as it arrives at 'destination'. > >'Observer' could be moving at ANY velocity, in any direction and he could >still determine that the photon's energy/frequency/wavelength, as measured by >'destination' would be the expected doppler shift, destination wrt source. So what? This has nothing to do with Einsteinian relativity. You are quoting the Newtonian version. there is hope for you yet > >>>> It is easy to calculate for a circular orbit. >>>> >>>> Incidentally, my program > >colors are better but 'how to use this program' on second page is still >unreadable. OK. Fixed that. > >I have some questions about the program. Please e-mail me at the address in >the signature of this post. > >>>> shows that the maximum brightness increase >>>> can be obtained with an edge on orbit with eccentricity of about 0.485 >>>> and perihelion furthest from observer. >>>> Nearly all the light from the 'concave part' of the orbit arrives over >>>> a very short time interval at one particular distance. >>> >>>will look at. >> >>>>>2) gravity lens effects >>>> >>>> Forget them >>> >>>why? >> >> They wont affect the SPEED of the light much. > >You are the 'speed changes person', I am intersted in anything that could >cause changes in BRIGHTNESS. I think that the gravity lens effect could cause >sharp peaks in brightness just before and just after the actual eclipse. Yes, maybe. So could refraction in the atmosphere around the eclipsing star. > >> Actually. there will be a slight spead of light speeds due to the fact >> that light from the egdes has different escape speeds from light at the >> nearest point to the observer. > >>> >>>> >>>>>3) planets >>>> >>>> too small to worry about. >>> >>>perhaps. >>> >>>> >>>>>4) diffraction effects >>>> >>>> constant over an orbit. >>> >>>not necessarily. >> >> I think we can assume that the any star's axis of rotation is roughly >> parallel to the orbital axis of rotation. There appears to be a reason >> for this, eg in our solar system where they are all pretty well lined up >> except one that was captured recently.. > >That assumption depends on the stars having formed together. > >Stars that are capture could easily have random orientations on their axes of >rotation. I think tidal forces eventually line them up. >... >> Yes, you seem to have made a discovery. >> Unfortunately there is no way to determine its distance from us. > >If the photos had been within days of each other, then I might have made a >discovery. As it is, I may have spotted two different satellites or some >object syn'd to the earths orbit. The length of the streak indicates to me >that [it was|they were] moving rather rapidly. Yes. > >.... >>>The guy in the moving frame of reference sees the laser beam vertical. >>>The one stationary sees that it really follows a diagonal. >> >> No he doesn't. >> It remains vertical in all frames. >> You have made the same mistake as Einstein did. > >Then I am in good company. :) > >> Run my 'vertical.exe' or 'movingframe.exe' programs again. >> ..or just plot the positions of 'wavecrests', yourself. > >I have done so. I still think that the observer in the moving frame of >reference will see the beam as moving along the diagonal. No. Each element of the beam follows a unique diagonal path in the moving frame. Only one element moves along that diagonal. All the elements remain in a vertical line in both frames. the beam remains vertical in all frames. SRians say that each infinitesimal element constitutes a photon and therefore moves diagonally at c. That is an old aether concept, again copied by Einstein. > >If he had very sophisticated test equipment, he might notice that each photon >was tilted a bit wrt the line of travel. No that's completely wrong. If a photon has an 'axis' then that axis remains vertical in all frames. It doesn't line up with the diagonal path of each element. If a photon is 'a little round ball of zero size', maybe SRians would have a point...but such an object could have NO properties at all. > >>>BTW, we live in a moving frame of reference. >> >> No we don't. We are in a slowly rotating frame, which means it is not >> quite inertial. >> Do you know what an 'inertial state' is? > >Rotation is a form of movement. > >Earth rotates on its axis. Earth revolves around earth/moon cog. Earth >revolves around the sun. Solar system (with earth) revolves around center of >Milky Way galaxy, Milky Way Galaxy, the greater and lesser Magenlenic clouds >and who knows what else form a local group that is revolving around its >center of mass... etc. > >We live in a moving frame of reference. Wrt what? Movement must have a reference. We are not moving in our own frame. Nor is a spaceship that is not firing its engine. > >an inertial system is >[quote] A reference system in which the Newtonian law of motion is valid, >specifically one in which a mass m subjected to a force F moves in accordance >with the equation F = ma, where a is the acceleration.[unquote] That's wrong. Wherever did you get that? An object is inertial if no forces are acting on it. It is in uniform motion. A spring accelerometer will tell you if you are in an inertial state or not. An object in free fall is inertial, according to SR. >>>> No you cannot. >>> >>>Example me some. >> >> The MMX. >> The constancy of TWLS. > >Those are examples that support SR. Using the equations of LET. >Example me some that do NOT support SR. I will assume that they will support >BaT. Variable stars are the only known test of OWLS from a moving source. As far as I'm concerned, they fully support the BaT. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
From: bz on 19 May 2005 12:18 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:itoi81doeaaomt2945kiu9rqcgf6rq5u4h(a)4ax.com: > On Tue, 17 May 2005 00:45:26 +0000 (UTC), bz > <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > >>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>news:979i819p74n1rgecd63img63t7i0jjl2ap(a)4ax.com: >> >>> On Mon, 16 May 2005 14:36:02 +0000 (UTC), bz >>> <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >>> >>>>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>>>news:56ag819u1m9oc007dl76ik3pe8vfmt68c7(a)4ax.com: >>>> >>> >>>>>>> The energy and 'frequency' of an absorbed photon depends on it >>>>>>> speed relative to the target. >>>>>> >>>>>>Notice, I said 'energy/frequency/wavelength. Up until now, we have >>>>>>disagreed upon this point. >>>>> >>>>> What does photon 'wavelength' represent? >>>> >>>>According to your earlier statement, it represents the results of the >>>>interaction with a diffraction grating. >>>> >>>>Under SR, it is closely related to both the energy and the frequency >>>>by c and by h respectively. >>> >>> Let me rephrase my question. >>> >>> What aspect of an photon is responsible for its apparent possession of >>> a characteristic 'wavelength'? >>> Until we know this, I cannot answer your question. >>> >>> My model of a photon is the 'sawtooth one'. >> >>Mine (consistent with SR) would be a similar to yours except the saw is >>rubber. If the source is moving toward the destination, the teeth get >>pushed closer together. If the source is moving away from the >>destination, the teeth get stretched further apart. > > That's not what SR says. > SR claims they get pushed together whether they are approaching or > receding. 'gamma' contains v^2, not v. > > You obviously don't appreciate the finer points of SRian stupidity. SR includes normal doppler shift also, v^2 only becomes significant at rather high delta v. >>> A photon is like a moving saw blade. The rate at which the teeth pass >>> a point is its frequency. The distance between teeth is its (fixed) >>> wavelength. >>> >>> Whether or not the teeth move up and down in a kind of standing wave >>> is also something to be considered. >> >>Imagine an omnicient observer located midway between source and >>destination and moving at such a velocity so that both 'source' and >>'destination' are either approaching 'observer' at the same velocities >>or both are receeding from 'observer' at the same velocities. >> >>The observer sees the photon doppler shifted by the relative velocity >>between him and the source. The destination sees twice the doppler shift >>as that seen by the observer. >> >>Lets say source and destination are both approaching observer. Observer >>sees the 'EM helix' of the photon 'compressed' as it leaves source and >>sees the 'EM helix' of the photon further 'compressed' as it arrives at >>'destination'. >> >>'Observer' could be moving at ANY velocity, in any direction and he >>could still determine that the photon's energy/frequency/wavelength, as >>measured by 'destination' would be the expected doppler shift, >>destination wrt source. > > So what? This has nothing to do with Einsteinian relativity. Einsteinian relativity INCLUDES normal doppler shift effects. We can't just ignore such effects. In fact, they are usually the most important effects. It is only at high relative velocities that other effects become significant. > You are quoting the Newtonian version. > there is hope for you yet If 'faith in SR' means no hope, then there is hope. I have faith in no theory. >>>>> It is easy to calculate for a circular orbit. >>>>> >>>>> Incidentally, my program >> >>colors are better but 'how to use this program' on second page is still >>unreadable. > > OK. Fixed that. Much better! > >> >>I have some questions about the program. Please e-mail me at the address >>in the signature of this post. >> >>>>> shows that the maximum brightness increase >>>>> can be obtained with an edge on orbit with eccentricity of about >>>>> 0.485 and perihelion furthest from observer. >>>>> Nearly all the light from the 'concave part' of the orbit arrives >>>>> over a very short time interval at one particular distance. >>>> >>>>will look at. >>> > >>>>>>2) gravity lens effects >>>>> >>>>> Forget them >>>> >>>>why? >>> >>> They wont affect the SPEED of the light much. >> >>You are the 'speed changes person', I am intersted in anything that >>could cause changes in BRIGHTNESS. I think that the gravity lens effect >>could cause sharp peaks in brightness just before and just after the >>actual eclipse. > > Yes, maybe. > So could refraction in the atmosphere around the eclipsing star. That is the reason I meantioned diffraction in 4, below. > >> >>> Actually. there will be a slight spead of light speeds due to the fact >>> that light from the egdes has different escape speeds from light at >>> the nearest point to the observer. >> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>>3) planets >>>>> >>>>> too small to worry about. >>>> >>>>perhaps. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>>4) diffraction effects >>>>> >>>>> constant over an orbit. >>>> >>>>not necessarily. >>> >>> I think we can assume that the any star's axis of rotation is roughly >>> parallel to the orbital axis of rotation. There appears to be a reason >>> for this, eg in our solar system where they are all pretty well lined >>> up except one that was captured recently.. >> >>That assumption depends on the stars having formed together. >> >>Stars that are capture could easily have random orientations on their >>axes of rotation. > > I think tidal forces eventually line them up. Eventually, that and electrodynamic forces. Both are spinning conductors with strong magnetic fields. ..... >> >>.... >>>>The guy in the moving frame of reference sees the laser beam vertical. >>>>The one stationary sees that it really follows a diagonal. >>> >>> No he doesn't. >>> It remains vertical in all frames. >>> You have made the same mistake as Einstein did. >> >>Then I am in good company. :) >> >>> Run my 'vertical.exe' or 'movingframe.exe' programs again. >>> ..or just plot the positions of 'wavecrests', yourself. >> >>I have done so. I still think that the observer in the moving frame of >>reference will see the beam as moving along the diagonal. > > No. Each element of the beam follows a unique diagonal path in the > moving frame. Only one element moves along that diagonal. > All the elements remain in a vertical line in both frames. Wrong. > the beam remains vertical in all frames. Wrong. Step back and ask yourself what does 'beam' mean. See my experiment, down the page. > SRians say that each infinitesimal element constitutes a photon and > therefore moves diagonally at c. > That is an old aether concept, again copied by Einstein. 'SRian', 'old', 'aether' are NOT four letter words. >>If he had very sophisticated test equipment, he might notice that each >>photon was tilted a bit wrt the line of travel. > > No that's completely wrong. If a photon has an 'axis' then that axis > remains vertical in all frames. It doesn't line up with the diagonal > path of each element. My laser pointer is projecting a beam of photons horizontally. The beam has frequency, polarization, energy, power, angular momentum. The axis around which each photon's EM fields oscillate is horizontal. The plane of oscillation is verical (the beam is vertically polarized at the moment). The beam of photons is grazing a very flat white plate, creating a long red streak on the plate. Imagine that the plate changes color to black, permanently, when a photon from my laser hits it. The plate is 1 meter wide and very long. I turn on my pointer for 100 ps. A 3 cm long pulse of light travels across the plate, leaving a black streak behind it. Now, imagine the plate is moving at 0.5 c from south to north. My laser is pointing from west to east. I pulse my laser again, for 100 ps, and we stop the plate after about 4000 ps. What will we see? We will see a diagonal black streak. Measuring across the plate, the streak will be 3 cm wide. Measuring across the streak, it will measure 1.7 cm wide, (sqrt(3)). Lets re do the experiment with shorter pulses. The streak gets narrower. Lets do the experiment with a pulse so short that only a single photon exits from the laser at any one point on the window. Only one photon hits the plate at any one point. The streak is 1 photon wide. It is one photon wide in EACH from of reference. In the moving frame of reference (the plate), the photons are NARROWER than they are in the fixed frame of reference. The lines on the plate would, if we could see them clearly look like this '/'. The bottom end, the end near us, was where the photon started to hit the plate. As the plate moves from our right toward our left, the photon's image is 'stretched' by the motion. If the plate had not been moving, each photon's image would look like this '|'. > If a photon is 'a little round ball of zero size', maybe SRians would > have a point...but such an object could have NO properties at all. 'size' is meaningless wrt photons. Photons have frequency, wavelength, energy, polarization, angular momentum, velocity. There is no 'size' parameter. >>>>BTW, we live in a moving frame of reference. >>> >>> No we don't. We are in a slowly rotating frame, which means it is not >>> quite inertial. >>> Do you know what an 'inertial state' is? >> >>Rotation is a form of movement. >> >>Earth rotates on its axis. Earth revolves around earth/moon cog. Earth >>revolves around the sun. Solar system (with earth) revolves around >>center of Milky Way galaxy, Milky Way Galaxy, the greater and lesser >>Magenlenic clouds and who knows what else form a local group that is >>revolving around its center of mass... etc. >> >>We live in a moving frame of reference. > > Wrt what? 'the fixed stars' > > Movement must have a reference. No. Movement exists. It just can not be measured w/o a reference frame. > We are not moving in our own frame. No one is moving in their own frame of reference. > > Nor is a spaceship that is not firing its engine. Nor when it is firing its engine, in its own frame of reference. >>an inertial system is >>[quote] A reference system in which the Newtonian law of motion is >>valid, specifically one in which a mass m subjected to a force F moves >>in accordance with the equation F = ma, where a is the >>acceleration.[unquote] > > That's wrong. Wherever did you get that? http://www.answers.com/topic/inertial-frame-of-reference > > An object is inertial if no forces are acting on it. It is in uniform > motion. A spring accelerometer will tell you if you are in an inertial > state or not. > > An object in free fall is inertial, according to SR. The person in a free falling elevator is in a state that can not be distinguished by that person from such a state. An outside observer CAN distinguish between them. [quote http://www.meta- religion.com/Physics/Relativity/a_more_practical_arrangement.htm] [in] Einstein's 1905 paper, in which the special theory of relativity is formally deduced from two empirically derived principles: (1) The laws of physics take the same form with respect to any inertial system of coordinates. (2) The speed of light is c with respect to any inertial system of coordinates. [unquote] Your statement about an inertial system is wrong. > An object is inertial if no forces are acting on it. It is in uniform > motion. A spring accelerometer will tell you if you are in an inertial > state or not. > > An object in free fall is inertial, according to SR. [quote http://www.waypnt.com/html/hins.html] An inertial coordinate frame does not rotate or accelerate with respect to any other system of reference. [unquote] A body in free fall is under constant acceleration wrt the mass it is falling toward. This does not imply that you can not define a set of coordinate systems that form an inertial coordinate frame. When you do, you are defining an 'isolated system' and ignoring everything outside that system. When you do this, everything is fine unless/until something enters or leaves the system. >>>>> No you cannot. >>>>Example me some. >>> The MMX. >>> The constancy of TWLS. >> >>Those are examples that support SR. > > Using the equations of LET. > >>Example me some that do NOT support SR. I will assume that they will >>support BaT. > > Variable stars are the only known test of OWLS from a moving source. > > As far as I'm concerned, they fully support the BaT. I am looking for something that can not be explained by anything but BaT. Give me an example of something that is NOT consistent with SR. BTW, if your variable stars program is BaT consistent [I am not sure it is] then it predicts some VERY strange brightness curves, the likeness of which have never been observed. -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
From: Henri Wilson on 19 May 2005 20:20 On Thu, 19 May 2005 16:18:15 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:itoi81doeaaomt2945kiu9rqcgf6rq5u4h(a)4ax.com: > >> On Tue, 17 May 2005 00:45:26 +0000 (UTC), bz >> <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >> >>> >>>Mine (consistent with SR) would be a similar to yours except the saw is >>>rubber. If the source is moving toward the destination, the teeth get >>>pushed closer together. If the source is moving away from the >>>destination, the teeth get stretched further apart. >> >> That's not what SR says. >> SR claims they get pushed together whether they are approaching or >> receding. 'gamma' contains v^2, not v. >> >> You obviously don't appreciate the finer points of SRian stupidity. > >SR includes normal doppler shift also, v^2 only becomes significant at rather >high delta v. No bz, you just don't get it. V^2 is significant because it is always positive. This means that according to SR and LET, clocks appear to run slow whether they are approaching OR receding. >>>'Observer' could be moving at ANY velocity, in any direction and he >>>could still determine that the photon's energy/frequency/wavelength, as >>>measured by 'destination' would be the expected doppler shift, >>>destination wrt source. >> >> So what? This has nothing to do with Einsteinian relativity. > >Einsteinian relativity INCLUDES normal doppler shift effects. I wouldn't call them 'normal'. At low speeds, the SR equation 'approximates' the Newtonian one. > >We can't just ignore such effects. In fact, they are usually the most >important effects. It is only at high relative velocities that other effects >become significant. > >> You are quoting the Newtonian version. >> there is hope for you yet > >If 'faith in SR' means no hope, then there is hope. I have faith in no >theory. Well I suggest you start looking seriously at the BaT because that is the only logical approach so far. Light must move at c wrt its source because that is the only reference it has. > >>>>>> It is easy to calculate for a circular orbit. >>>>>> >>>>>> Incidentally, my program >>> >>>colors are better but 'how to use this program' on second page is still >>>unreadable. >> >> OK. Fixed that. > >Much better! Good. >>>That assumption depends on the stars having formed together. >>> >>>Stars that are capture could easily have random orientations on their >>>axes of rotation. >> >> I think tidal forces eventually line them up. > >Eventually, that and electrodynamic forces. >Both are spinning conductors with strong magnetic fields. yes. >> No. Each element of the beam follows a unique diagonal path in the >> moving frame. Only one element moves along that diagonal. >> All the elements remain in a vertical line in both frames. > >Wrong. > >> the beam remains vertical in all frames. >Wrong. > >Step back and ask yourself what does 'beam' mean. See my experiment, down the >page. > >> SRians say that each infinitesimal element constitutes a photon and >> therefore moves diagonally at c. >> That is an old aether concept, again copied by Einstein. > >'SRian', 'old', 'aether' are NOT four letter words. > >>>If he had very sophisticated test equipment, he might notice that each >>>photon was tilted a bit wrt the line of travel. >> >> No that's completely wrong. If a photon has an 'axis' then that axis >> remains vertical in all frames. It doesn't line up with the diagonal >> path of each element. > >My laser pointer is projecting a beam of photons horizontally. >The beam has frequency, polarization, energy, power, angular momentum. > >The axis around which each photon's EM fields oscillate is horizontal. The >plane of oscillation is verical (the beam is vertically polarized at the >moment). > >The beam of photons is grazing a very flat white plate, creating a long red >streak on the plate. > >Imagine that the plate changes color to black, permanently, when a photon >from my laser hits it. The plate is 1 meter wide and very long. > >I turn on my pointer for 100 ps. A 3 cm long pulse of light travels across >the plate, leaving a black streak behind it. > >Now, imagine the plate is moving at 0.5 c from south to north. My laser is >pointing from west to east. > >I pulse my laser again, for 100 ps, and we stop the plate after about 4000 >ps. What will we see? > >We will see a diagonal black streak. Measuring across the plate, the streak >will be 3 cm wide. Measuring across the streak, it will measure 1.7 cm wide, >(sqrt(3)). > >Lets re do the experiment with shorter pulses. >The streak gets narrower. > >Lets do the experiment with a pulse so short that only a single photon exits >from the laser at any one point on the window. > >Only one photon hits the plate at any one point. The streak is 1 photon wide. >It is one photon wide in EACH frame of reference. In the moving frame of >reference (the plate), the photons are NARROWER than they are in the fixed >frame of reference. The lines on the plate would, if we could see them >clearly look like this '/'. > >The bottom end, the end near us, was where the photon started to hit the >plate. As the plate moves from our right toward our left, the photon's image >is 'stretched' by the motion. If the plate had not been moving, each photon's >image would look like this '|'. You have restated the common fallacy assumed by Einstein and plenty of other 'eminent' scientists. The 'axis' of each photon remains like | in the moving frame. See my program: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/movingframe.exe I have fixed the colours in this one too and added a few extras. It will show you why you and Einstein are wrong. > > >> If a photon is 'a little round ball of zero size', maybe SRians would >> have a point...but such an object could have NO properties at all. > >'size' is meaningless wrt photons. Photons have frequency, wavelength, >energy, polarization, angular momentum, velocity. There is no 'size' >parameter. Then photons are no different from zero space and can have no properties that distinguish them from 'nothing'. >>>Earth rotates on its axis. Earth revolves around earth/moon cog. Earth >>>revolves around the sun. Solar system (with earth) revolves around >>>center of Milky Way galaxy, Milky Way Galaxy, the greater and lesser >>>Magenlenic clouds and who knows what else form a local group that is >>>revolving around its center of mass... etc. >>> >>>We live in a moving frame of reference. >> >> Wrt what? > >'the fixed stars' Yes we have discussed that. The 'fixed stars' are not 'fixed' relative to a larger sphere of 'fixed stars'. > >> >> Movement must have a reference. > >No. Movement exists. It just can not be measured w/o a reference frame. More strictly, it cannot be DEFINED without a reference frame. > >> We are not moving in our own frame. > >No one is moving in their own frame of reference. > >> >> Nor is a spaceship that is not firing its engine. > >Nor when it is firing its engine, in its own frame of reference. It is not 'inertial' when firing its engine. It is in a state of acceleration. It is constantly changing its speed relative to itself an infinitesimal instant previously. (That'll make you think!) > >>>an inertial system is >>>[quote] A reference system in which the Newtonian law of motion is >>>valid, specifically one in which a mass m subjected to a force F moves >>>in accordance with the equation F = ma, where a is the >>>acceleration.[unquote] >> >> That's wrong. Wherever did you get that? >http://www.answers.com/topic/inertial-frame-of-reference It is wrong. > > >> >> An object is inertial if no forces are acting on it. It is in uniform >> motion. A spring accelerometer will tell you if you are in an inertial >> state or not. >> >> An object in free fall is inertial, according to SR. > >The person in a free falling elevator is in a state that can not be >distinguished by that person from such a state. > >An outside observer CAN distinguish between them. That's the question I often ask SRians. An object that is free falling towards Earth (assume no atmosphere) is regarded as moving inertially according to SR. It is NOT in a state of aceleration. However to an observer on the moon, it would be appear to be accelerating. His telescope angle would have to accelerate to track the object. They cannot answer this question. > > >[quote http://www.meta- >religion.com/Physics/Relativity/a_more_practical_arrangement.htm] > >[in] Einstein's 1905 paper, in which the special theory of relativity is >formally deduced from two empirically derived principles: > > (1) The laws of physics take the same form with respect to any inertial >system of coordinates. > > (2) The speed of light is c with respect to any inertial system of >coordinates. >[unquote] You are very confused. These were pure postulates, not 'empirically derived principles'. A postulate is just that. It is not a proven fact. > > >Your statement about an inertial system is wrong. >> An object is inertial if no forces are acting on it. It is in uniform >> motion. A spring accelerometer will tell you if you are in an inertial >> state or not. >> >> An object in free fall is inertial, according to SR. > > >[quote http://www.waypnt.com/html/hins.html] >An inertial coordinate frame does not rotate or accelerate with respect to >any other system of reference. >[unquote] > >A body in free fall is under constant acceleration wrt the mass it is falling >toward. Not according to GR. It is inertial..... even though it d2x/dt2 appear to be non zero. GR simply 'curves' space, so that it WILL BE zero. Now you are starting to realize the stupidty of relativity. > >This does not imply that you can not define a set of coordinate systems that >form an inertial coordinate frame. GR says any object in free fall defines an inertial system. Argue with them, not me. > >When you do, you are defining an 'isolated system' and ignoring everything >outside that system. When you do this, everything is fine unless/until >something enters or leaves the system. ok probably. >>>Example me some that do NOT support SR. I will assume that they will >>>support BaT. >> >> Variable stars are the only known test of OWLS from a moving source. >> >> As far as I'm concerned, they fully support the BaT. > >I am looking for something that can not be explained by anything but BaT. >Give me an example of something that is NOT consistent with SR. SR cannot explain the following: <-A______________O B-> A and B are two differently moving sources that emit a pulse of light towards O when they are adjacent. Question: Why should the two pulses remain together as they travel? What determines their speed? Obviously, SR assumes that a property of the space between the point of emission and the observer determines a common speed. That is straight aether theory. SR breaks down. The BaT tells the truth. The pulses do NOT travel together. That is now evidence by variable star data. > >BTW, if your variable stars program is BaT consistent [I am not sure it is] >then it predicts some VERY strange brightness curves, the likeness of which >have never been observed. At high eccentricities? yes. I am working on these. Thermal source speeds are the most likely reason. Also, extinction in gases around the stars. My curves assume absolutely NO factors other than c+v. There are many. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
From: bz on 20 May 2005 07:56 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:mi4q81hbukgmpq5m8bmp59s1knmpftcluv(a)4ax.com: > On Thu, 19 May 2005 16:18:15 +0000 (UTC), bz > <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > >>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>news:itoi81doeaaomt2945kiu9rqcgf6rq5u4h(a)4ax.com: >> >>> On Tue, 17 May 2005 00:45:26 +0000 (UTC), bz >>> <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >>>>Mine (consistent with SR) would be a similar to yours except the saw >>>>is rubber. If the source is moving toward the destination, the teeth >>>>get pushed closer together. If the source is moving away from the >>>>destination, the teeth get stretched further apart. >>> >>> That's not what SR says. >>> SR claims they get pushed together whether they are approaching or >>> receding. 'gamma' contains v^2, not v. >>> >>> You obviously don't appreciate the finer points of SRian stupidity. >> >>SR includes normal doppler shift also, v^2 only becomes significant at >>rather high delta v. > > No bz, you just don't get it. > > V^2 is significant because it is always positive. > > This means that according to SR and LET, clocks appear to run slow > whether they are approaching OR receding. I understand this. It is a well known, observable effect. ..... >>Einsteinian relativity INCLUDES normal doppler shift effects. > > I wouldn't call them 'normal'. At low speeds, the SR equation > 'approximates' the Newtonian one. close enough. >>We can't just ignore such effects. In fact, they are usually the most >>important effects. It is only at high relative velocities that other >>effects become significant. >> >>> You are quoting the Newtonian version. >>> there is hope for you yet >> >>If 'faith in SR' means no hope, then there is hope. I have faith in no >>theory. > > Well I suggest you start looking seriously at the BaT because that is > the only logical approach so far. > Light must move at c wrt its source because that is the only reference > it has. SR assumes light moves at c wrt its source. It also says that ANY observer will measure the velocity of light as c. BaT says light moves at c wrt its source. It also says that ANY observer in any other FoR will measure a different velocity for that photon. This is NOT logical to me. It is not consistent with results from particle accelerators nor any other 'moving source' experiment that has ever been run. ..... >>My laser pointer is projecting a beam of photons horizontally. >>The beam has frequency, polarization, energy, power, angular momentum. >> >>The axis around which each photon's EM fields oscillate is horizontal. >>The plane of oscillation is verical (the beam is vertically polarized at >>the moment). >> >>The beam of photons is grazing a very flat white plate, creating a long >>red streak on the plate. >> >>Imagine that the plate changes color to black, permanently, when a >>photon from my laser hits it. The plate is 1 meter wide and very long. >> >>I turn on my pointer for 100 ps. A 3 cm long pulse of light travels >>across the plate, leaving a black streak behind it. >> >>Now, imagine the plate is moving at 0.5 c from south to north. My laser >>is pointing from west to east. >> >>I pulse my laser again, for 100 ps, and we stop the plate after about >>4000 ps. What will we see? >> >>We will see a diagonal black streak. Measuring across the plate, the >>streak will be 3 cm wide. Measuring across the streak, it will measure >>1.7 cm wide, (sqrt(3)). >> >>Lets re do the experiment with shorter pulses. >>The streak gets narrower. >> >>Lets do the experiment with a pulse so short that only a single photon >>exits from the laser at any one point on the window. >> >>Only one photon hits the plate at any one point. The streak is 1 photon >>wide. It is one photon wide in EACH frame of reference. In the moving >>frame of reference (the plate), the photons are NARROWER than they are >>in the fixed frame of reference. The lines on the plate would, if we >>could see them clearly look like this '/'. >> >>The bottom end, the end near us, was where the photon started to hit the >>plate. As the plate moves from our right toward our left, the photon's >>image is 'stretched' by the motion. If the plate had not been moving, >>each photon's image would look like this '|'. > > You have restated the common fallacy assumed by Einstein and plenty of > other 'eminent' scientists. > > The 'axis' of each photon remains like | in the moving frame. > See my program: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/movingframe.exe I have seen your program. It does nothing to refute the above experiment. > I have fixed the colours in this one too and added a few extras. > It will show you why you and Einstein are wrong. Only a real experiment can show Einstein wrong. None have done so. >>> If a photon is 'a little round ball of zero size', maybe SRians would >>> have a point...but such an object could have NO properties at all. >> >>'size' is meaningless wrt photons. Photons have frequency, wavelength, >>energy, polarization, angular momentum, velocity. There is no 'size' >>parameter. > > Then photons are no different from zero space and can have no properties > that distinguish them from 'nothing'. Photons have frequency, wavelength, energy, polarization, angular momentum, velocity. Most of these are quantitized. 'nothing' lacks all of these. Photons are clearly different from 'zero space' and have properties that distinguish them from 'nothing'. ..... >>>>We live in a moving frame of reference. >>> >>> Wrt what? >> >>'the fixed stars' > > Yes we have discussed that. > The 'fixed stars' are not 'fixed' relative to a larger sphere of 'fixed > stars'. Agreed. >>> Movement must have a reference. >> >>No. Movement exists. It just can not be measured w/o a reference frame. > > More strictly, it cannot be DEFINED without a reference frame. ok. >>> We are not moving in our own frame. >> >>No one is moving in their own frame of reference. >> >>> >>> Nor is a spaceship that is not firing its engine. >> >>Nor when it is firing its engine, in its own frame of reference. > > It is not 'inertial' when firing its engine. Depends on the size of the inertial system you are defining. In a small room in the ship, when you measure 1 G of acceleration, you can't know if the ship is sitting on the ground or accelerating at 1 G by firing its rocket. > It is in a state of > acceleration. It is constantly changing its speed relative to itself an > infinitesimal instant previously. > (That'll make you think!) dv/dt but the ds/dt makes it a different reference frame. >>>>an inertial system is >>>>[quote] A reference system in which the Newtonian law of motion is >>>>valid, specifically one in which a mass m subjected to a force F moves >>>>in accordance with the equation F = ma, where a is the >>>>acceleration.[unquote] >>> >>> That's wrong. Wherever did you get that? >>http://www.answers.com/topic/inertial-frame-of-reference > > It is wrong. In what way is it wrong? [quote Lindsay & Margenau, Foundations of Physics, p330,331] Newton had a well defined theory of relativity which consisted in the assumption that the laws of machanics have the same form in all reference systems moving with respect to each other with constant velocity. [unquote] such reference systems are inertial systems. [quote] Essentially therefore we may say that the Newtonian theory of relativity expressed the impossibility of detecting the motion of an inertial system by any mechanical means. [unquote] [quote p333] Einsteine decided to discuss the problem of relativity from a more general viewpoint....He lays down the following general postulates: 1. Physical laws and principles are of the same form in all inertial systems, that is, in all reference systems which differ only in the fact that they are moving with constant velocity with respect to each other. 2. The velocity of light has the same value in all inertial systems. [unquote] >>> An object is inertial if no forces are acting on it. It is in uniform >>> motion. A spring accelerometer will tell you if you are in an inertial >>> state or not. It can not. >>> >>> An object in free fall is inertial, according to SR. NO. >> >>The person in a free falling elevator is in a state that can not be >>distinguished by that person from such a state. >> >>An outside observer CAN distinguish between them. > > That's the question I often ask SRians. > > An object that is free falling towards Earth (assume no atmosphere) is > regarded as moving inertially according to SR. It is NOT in a state of > aceleration. Either I misunderstand SR, or you do. > > However to an observer on the moon, it would be appear to be > accelerating. His telescope angle would have to accelerate to track the > object. > > They cannot answer this question. Then they don't understand SR. [quote A.E. ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES] Let us take a system of co-ordinates in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good.2 In order to render our presentation more precise and to distinguish this system of co-ordinates verbally from others which will be introduced hereafter, we call it the ýstationary system.ý If a material point is at rest relatively to this system of co-ordinates, its position can be defined relatively thereto by the employment of rigid standards of measurement and the methods of Euclidean geometry, and can be expressed in Cartesian co-ordinates. [unquote] >>[quote http://www.meta- >>religion.com/Physics/Relativity/a_more_practical_arrangement.htm] >> >>[in] Einstein's 1905 paper, in which the special theory of relativity is >>formally deduced from two empirically derived principles: >> >> (1) The laws of physics take the same form with respect to any >> inertial >>system of coordinates. >> >> (2) The speed of light is c with respect to any inertial system of >>coordinates. >>[unquote] > > You are very confused. > These were pure postulates, not 'empirically derived principles'. > > A postulate is just that. It is not a proven fact. First, it is not I that called the postulates emperically derived principles. Second, the postulates [principles] are derived from experimental [empirically derived] data. >>Your statement about an inertial system is wrong. >>> An object is inertial if no forces are acting on it. It is in uniform >>> motion. A spring accelerometer will tell you if you are in an inertial >>> state or not. >>> >>> An object in free fall is inertial, according to SR. Not true. GR says that an object in a system that is in free fall can not be distinguished from an object in a system that is in uniform motion. [quote from M&L, p358] ....an observer inclosed in a box which is falling freely, and without congnizance of the world around him, would suppose that bodies within the box experience no force at all.... homogeneous gravitationsl field can be removed by transformation to a proper accelerated system....all forces can be "transformed away" in a similar manner...." >> >> >>[quote http://www.waypnt.com/html/hins.html] >>An inertial coordinate frame does not rotate or accelerate with respect >>to any other system of reference. >>[unquote] >> >>A body in free fall is under constant acceleration wrt the mass it is >>falling toward. > > Not according to GR. NO. According to GR, someone in such a system is unable to tell it from one in constant motion. > It is inertial..... even though it d2x/dt2 appear > to be non zero. > GR simply 'curves' space, so that it WILL BE zero. > > Now you are starting to realize the stupidty of relativity. Just the stupidity of some of the interpretations of relativity. >>This does not imply that you can not define a set of coordinate systems >>that from an inertial coordinate frame. > > GR says any object in free fall defines an inertial system. Argue with > them, not me. It says such a system may be defined. Not that the object defines such a system. >>When you do, you are defining an 'isolated system' and ignoring >>everything outside that system. When you do this, everything is fine >>unless/until something enters or leaves the system. > > ok probably. > > >>>>Example me some that do NOT support SR. I will assume that they will >>>>support BaT. >>> >>> Variable stars are the only known test of OWLS from a moving source. >>> >>> As far as I'm concerned, they fully support the BaT. >> >>I am looking for something that can not be explained by anything but >>BaT. Give me an example of something that is NOT consistent with SR. > > SR cannot explain the following: > <-A______________O > B-> > > A and B are two differently moving sources that emit a pulse of light > towards O when they are adjacent. > > Question: Why should the two pulses remain together as they travel? What > determines their speed? Science doesn't answer 'Why' questions. Science observes WHAT happens and tries to use that to predict WHAT WILL happen. In every case where such a system has been tested, the two pulses of light remain together as they travel. > Obviously, SR assumes that a property of the space between the point of > emission There is no such assumption in SR. > and the observer determines a common speed. That is straight > aether theory. SR breaks down. SR would only break down in the face of data showing unmistakably that photons travel at c'=c+v. > > The BaT tells the truth. The pulses do NOT travel together. That is now > evidence by variable star data. You and I disagree on this. >>BTW, if your variable stars program is BaT consistent [I am not sure it >>is] then it predicts some VERY strange brightness curves, the likeness >>of which have never been observed. > > At high eccentricities? yes. I am working on these. Thermal source > speeds are the most likely reason. Also, extinction in gases around the > stars. My curves assume absolutely NO factors other than c+v. > There are many. There may be some major bugs in the program, also. I keep trying to contact you by e-mail. So far, no luck. -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
From: Henri Wilson on 21 May 2005 03:21
On Fri, 20 May 2005 11:56:07 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:mi4q81hbukgmpq5m8bmp59s1knmpftcluv(a)4ax.com: > >>>> That's not what SR says. >>>> SR claims they get pushed together whether they are approaching or >>>> receding. 'gamma' contains v^2, not v. >>>> >>>> You obviously don't appreciate the finer points of SRian stupidity. >>> >>>SR includes normal doppler shift also, v^2 only becomes significant at >>>rather high delta v. >> >> No bz, you just don't get it. >> >> V^2 is significant because it is always positive. >> >> This means that according to SR and LET, clocks appear to run slow >> whether they are approaching OR receding. > >I understand this. It is a well known, observable effect. HoHoHo Hahahah! It has never been observed. > >.... >>>Einsteinian relativity INCLUDES normal doppler shift effects. >> >> I wouldn't call them 'normal'. At low speeds, the SR equation >> 'approximates' the Newtonian one. > >close enough. > >>>We can't just ignore such effects. In fact, they are usually the most >>>important effects. It is only at high relative velocities that other >>>effects become significant. >>> >>>> You are quoting the Newtonian version. >>>> there is hope for you yet >>> >>>If 'faith in SR' means no hope, then there is hope. I have faith in no >>>theory. >> >> Well I suggest you start looking seriously at the BaT because that is >> the only logical approach so far. >> Light must move at c wrt its source because that is the only reference >> it has. > >SR assumes light moves at c wrt its source. It also says that ANY observer >will measure the velocity of light as c. That's just an LET principle. If an absolute 'aether' actually exists, then contractions can be real and the Lorentz transforms can possibly make sense. Einsten merely rewrote LET is a cleverly disguised manner. Not one claim of SR has ever been directly proved. > >BaT says light moves at c wrt its source. It also says that ANY observer in >any other FoR will measure a different velocity for that photon. >This is NOT logical to me. Your form of logic must be a new version. Try doing it with bullets and moving targets. > >It is not consistent with results from particle accelerators nor any other >'moving source' experiment that has ever been run. Charged particles obey different laws. OWLS from a moving source has never been measured. > >.... >>>My laser pointer is projecting a beam of photons horizontally. >>>The beam has frequency, polarization, energy, power, angular momentum. >>> >>>The axis around which each photon's EM fields oscillate is horizontal. >>>The plane of oscillation is verical (the beam is vertically polarized at >>>the moment). >>> >>>The beam of photons is grazing a very flat white plate, creating a long >>>red streak on the plate. >>> >>>Imagine that the plate changes color to black, permanently, when a >>>photon from my laser hits it. The plate is 1 meter wide and very long. >>> >>>I turn on my pointer for 100 ps. A 3 cm long pulse of light travels >>>across the plate, leaving a black streak behind it. >>> >>>Now, imagine the plate is moving at 0.5 c from south to north. My laser >>>is pointing from west to east. >>> >>>I pulse my laser again, for 100 ps, and we stop the plate after about >>>4000 ps. What will we see? >>> >>>We will see a diagonal black streak. Measuring across the plate, the >>>streak will be 3 cm wide. Measuring across the streak, it will measure >>>1.7 cm wide, (sqrt(3)). >>> >>>Lets re do the experiment with shorter pulses. >>>The streak gets narrower. >>> >>>Lets do the experiment with a pulse so short that only a single photon >>>exits from the laser at any one point on the window. >>> >>>Only one photon hits the plate at any one point. The streak is 1 photon >>>wide. It is one photon wide in EACH frame of reference. In the moving >>>frame of reference (the plate), the photons are NARROWER than they are >>>in the fixed frame of reference. The lines on the plate would, if we >>>could see them clearly look like this '/'. >>> >>>The bottom end, the end near us, was where the photon started to hit the >>>plate. As the plate moves from our right toward our left, the photon's >>>image is 'stretched' by the motion. If the plate had not been moving, >>>each photon's image would look like this '|'. >> >> You have restated the common fallacy assumed by Einstein and plenty of >> other 'eminent' scientists. >> >> The 'axis' of each photon remains like | in the moving frame. >> See my program: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/movingframe.exe > >I have seen your program. It does nothing to refute the above experiment. It is blatantly obvious that the beam as a whole remains vertical in all frames. The diagonal paths of each infinitesimal element of the beam are just that - infinitesimally thin lines. What moves diagonally along each line certainly doesn't constitute a light beam. It is a dimensionless point. > >> I have fixed the colours in this one too and added a few extras. >> It will show you why you and Einstein are wrong. > >Only a real experiment can show Einstein wrong. None have done so. None have shown him right, either. > >>>> If a photon is 'a little round ball of zero size', maybe SRians would >>>> have a point...but such an object could have NO properties at all. >>> >>>'size' is meaningless wrt photons. Photons have frequency, wavelength, >>>energy, polarization, angular momentum, velocity. There is no 'size' >>>parameter. >> >> Then photons are no different from zero space and can have no properties >> that distinguish them from 'nothing'. > >Photons have frequency, wavelength, energy, polarization, angular momentum, >velocity. Most of these are quantitized. > >'nothing' lacks all of these. Well nothing without size and internal structure can exhibit properties that are different from what 'nothing' would exhibit. > >Photons are clearly different from 'zero space' and have properties that >distinguish them from 'nothing'. You just argued that they WERE zero space. Please make up your mind. > >.... >>>>>We live in a moving frame of reference. >>>> >>>> Wrt what? >>> >>>'the fixed stars' >> >> Yes we have discussed that. >> The 'fixed stars' are not 'fixed' relative to a larger sphere of 'fixed >> stars'. > >Agreed. > >>>> Movement must have a reference. >>> >>>No. Movement exists. It just can not be measured w/o a reference frame. >> >> More strictly, it cannot be DEFINED without a reference frame. > >ok. > >>>> We are not moving in our own frame. >>> >>>No one is moving in their own frame of reference. >>> >>>> >>>> Nor is a spaceship that is not firing its engine. >>> >>>Nor when it is firing its engine, in its own frame of reference. >> >> It is not 'inertial' when firing its engine. > >Depends on the size of the inertial system you are defining. >In a small room in the ship, when you measure 1 G of acceleration, you can't >know if the ship is sitting on the ground or accelerating at 1 G by firing >its rocket. It is non-inertial in either case.(according to SR) > >> It is in a state of >> acceleration. It is constantly changing its speed relative to itself an >> infinitesimal instant previously. >> (That'll make you think!) > >dv/dt > >but the ds/dt makes it a different reference frame. OK, let's just say it can detect a force acting on it. > >>>>>an inertial system is >>>>>[quote] A reference system in which the Newtonian law of motion is >>>>>valid, specifically one in which a mass m subjected to a force F moves >>>>>in accordance with the equation F = ma, where a is the >>>>>acceleration.[unquote] >>>> >>>> That's wrong. Wherever did you get that? >>>http://www.answers.com/topic/inertial-frame-of-reference >> >> It is wrong. > >In what way is it wrong? > >[quote Lindsay & Margenau, Foundations of Physics, p330,331] >Newton had a well defined theory of relativity which consisted in the >assumption that the laws of machanics have the same form in all reference >systems moving with respect to each other with constant velocity. >[unquote] >such reference systems are inertial systems. >[quote] >Essentially therefore we may say that the Newtonian theory of relativity >expressed the impossibility of detecting the motion of an inertial system by >any mechanical means. >[unquote] >[quote p333] >Einsteine decided to discuss the problem of relativity from a more general >viewpoint....He lays down the following general postulates: >1. Physical laws and principles are of the same form in all inertial systems, >that is, in all reference systems which differ only in the fact that they are >moving with constant velocity with respect to each other. Yes, but 'constant velocity' meant different things to Newton and Einstein. Like I said, according to SR, anything in free fall is in a state of constant velocity and is inertial. >2. The velocity of light has the same value in all inertial systems. >[unquote] That's a postulate, not a law. > >>>> An object is inertial if no forces are acting on it. It is in uniform >>>> motion. A spring accelerometer will tell you if you are in an inertial >>>> state or not. > >It can not. not in free fall, no. > >>>> >>>> An object in free fall is inertial, according to SR. > >NO. yes, ask any SRian. space curves to make it inertial. > >>> >>>The person in a free falling elevator is in a state that can not be >>>distinguished by that person from such a state. >>> >>>An outside observer CAN distinguish between them. >> >> That's the question I often ask SRians. >> >> An object that is free falling towards Earth (assume no atmosphere) is >> regarded as moving inertially according to SR. It is NOT in a state of >> aceleration. > >Either I misunderstand SR, or you do. you do > >> >> However to an observer on the moon, it would be appear to be >> accelerating. His telescope angle would have to accelerate to track the >> object. >> >> They cannot answer this question. > >Then they don't understand SR. > >[quote A.E. ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES] >Let us take a system of co-ordinates in which the equations of Newtonian >mechanics hold good.2 In order to render our presentation more precise and >to distinguish this system of co-ordinates verbally from others which will be >introduced hereafter, we call it the ýstationary system.ý >If a material point is at rest relatively to this system of co-ordinates, its >position can be defined relatively thereto by the employment of rigid >standards of measurement and the methods of Euclidean geometry, and can be >expressed in Cartesian co-ordinates. >[unquote] Do you you know what a 'geodesic' is? > >>>[quote http://www.meta- >>>religion.com/Physics/Relativity/a_more_practical_arrangement.htm] >>> >>>[in] Einstein's 1905 paper, in which the special theory of relativity is >>>formally deduced from two empirically derived principles: >>> >>> (1) The laws of physics take the same form with respect to any >>> inertial >>>system of coordinates. >>> >>> (2) The speed of light is c with respect to any inertial system of >>>coordinates. >>>[unquote] >> >> You are very confused. >> These were pure postulates, not 'empirically derived principles'. >> >> A postulate is just that. It is not a proven fact. > >First, it is not I that called the postulates emperically derived principles. > >Second, the postulates [principles] are derived from experimental >[empirically derived] data. Never. You have it back to front. > >>>Your statement about an inertial system is wrong. > >>>> An object is inertial if no forces are acting on it. It is in uniform >>>> motion. A spring accelerometer will tell you if you are in an inertial >>>> state or not. >>>> >>>> An object in free fall is inertial, according to SR. > >Not true. > >GR says that an object in a system that is in free fall can not be >distinguished from an object in a system that is in uniform motion. that's right. It is inertial. > >[quote from M&L, p358] >...an observer inclosed in a box which is falling freely, and without >congnizance of the world around him, would suppose that bodies within the box >experience no force at all.... homogeneous gravitationsl field can be removed >by transformation to a proper accelerated system....all forces can be >"transformed away" in a similar manner...." It is inertial. ..whether or not it appears to an outside observer to be accelerating. > >>> >>> >>>[quote http://www.waypnt.com/html/hins.html] >>>An inertial coordinate frame does not rotate or accelerate with respect >>>to any other system of reference. >>>[unquote] >>> >>>A body in free fall is under constant acceleration wrt the mass it is >>>falling toward. >> >> Not according to GR. > >NO. According to GR, someone in such a system is unable to tell it from one >in constant motion. > >> It is inertial..... even though it d2x/dt2 appear >> to be non zero. >> GR simply 'curves' space, so that it WILL BE zero. >> >> Now you are starting to realize the stupidty of relativity. > >Just the stupidity of some of the interpretations of relativity. > >>>This does not imply that you can not define a set of coordinate systems >>>that from an inertial coordinate frame. >> >> GR says any object in free fall defines an inertial system. Argue with >> them, not me. > >It says such a system may be defined. Not that the object defines such a >system. I don't think it knows what it says. > >>>When you do, you are defining an 'isolated system' and ignoring >>>everything outside that system. When you do this, everything is fine >>>unless/until something enters or leaves the system. >> >> ok probably. >> >> >>>>>Example me some that do NOT support SR. I will assume that they will >>>>>support BaT. >>>> >>>> Variable stars are the only known test of OWLS from a moving source. >>>> >>>> As far as I'm concerned, they fully support the BaT. >>> >>>I am looking for something that can not be explained by anything but >>>BaT. Give me an example of something that is NOT consistent with SR. >> >> SR cannot explain the following: >> <-A______________O >> B-> >> >> A and B are two differently moving sources that emit a pulse of light >> towards O when they are adjacent. >> >> Question: Why should the two pulses remain together as they travel? What >> determines their speed? > >Science doesn't answer 'Why' questions. Science observes WHAT happens and >tries to use that to predict WHAT WILL happen. > >In every case where such a system has been tested, the two pulses of light >remain together as they travel. There has never been one such case. What are you talking about? I'm beginning to think you are just trolling. > >> Obviously, SR assumes that a property of the space between the point of >> emission > >There is no such assumption in SR. > >> and the observer determines a common speed. That is straight >> aether theory. SR breaks down. > >SR would only break down in the face of data showing unmistakably that >photons travel at c'=c+v. It breaks down into LET when it tries to explain the above. > >> >> The BaT tells the truth. The pulses do NOT travel together. That is now >> evidence by variable star data. > >You and I disagree on this. I don't care. I am not interested in deluding myself just to become another member of the common herd. > >>>BTW, if your variable stars program is BaT consistent [I am not sure it >>>is] then it predicts some VERY strange brightness curves, the likeness >>>of which have never been observed. >> >> At high eccentricities? yes. I am working on these. Thermal source >> speeds are the most likely reason. Also, extinction in gases around the >> stars. My curves assume absolutely NO factors other than c+v. >> There are many. > >There may be some major bugs in the program, also. I keep trying to contact >you by e-mail. So far, no luck. I sent you another email. try again. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong. |