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: bz on 21 May 2005 05:44 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:irnt81h2oat5octqjhgrl1k7qums14mmhp(a)4ax.com: > 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. http://www.exo.net/~pauld/physics/relativity/relativitytimefly.htm http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html ..... >>> 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. SR does NOT depend on an aether. None was assumed in the derivation of the equations. That may be clever. But unless you can show the step where the assumption MUST have been made, your repeated claim of a disguised assumption is specious. >>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. bullets have mass. Photons do not. They obey different laws. >>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. Why should photons emitted by moving charged particles obey different laws from other photons? > OWLS from a moving source has never been measured. OWLS is not required to disprove BaT. TOFLS will suffice. ..... >>>>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. Many people say that photons are dimensionless points. >>> 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. None have shown him wrong. That is what is required to invalidate SR. >>>>> 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 exhibit properties. That means that photons are not nothing. They are something. Define this 'size' thing you want to measure. >>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. I did NOT argue they were zero space. I argued that the term 'size' is meaningless wrt photons unless you define how you are going to measure 'size'. Any measure of 'size' that uses in any way the frequency, wavelength, energy, polarization, angular momentum, or velocity of matter will show 'size'. ..... >>> 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) SR does NOT say it is non-inertial in either case. It says that the observer can not distinguise. ..... >>> 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 isolated object can not detect a force acting upon 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. You misunderstand SR and free fall. As long as everything within a frame of reference is in a state of constant velocity then an observer within that frame can not distinguish his condition from free fall. >>2. The velocity of light has the same value in all inertial systems. >>[unquote] > > That's a postulate, not a law. It was stated as a postulate. You just repeated what was said. >>>>> 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. A spring accelerometer can only tell you if some force is acting upon the mass in the accelerometer in a different manner from the action upon the case of the accelerometer. It can not tell you why. >>>>> An object in free fall is inertial, according to SR. >> >>NO. > > yes, ask any SRian. > > space curves to make it inertial. The curving of space is GR, not SR. http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~ryden/ast162_6/notes24.html Perhaps your confusion over the distinction between SR and GR is leading you astray. ..... >>>>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 YOU seem to have SR and GR confused. >>> 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? Now you are trying to feed me a line. Geodesics curve under the influence of mass per GR. Again, you confuse SR and GR. >>>>[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. If expermental data had clearly show that c'=c+v, Einstein would have never postulated that c is constant. Science ever works from data to theory to predictions. Einsteines postulates would have been useless if they were not based on experimental data. You waste time and energy arguing about this point. >>>>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. GR. Your claim is that SR is false. You can not disprove SR by attacking GR. >>[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. It is inertial to the observer inside the box and to any other observer in an inertial frame that is at a constant velocity wrt the box. That is what SR says. >>>>[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. It doesn't care. >>>>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. You asked the 'Why' question. Science doesn't answer 'why' questions. If you want those kinds of answers, go to church. >>> 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. It does NOT need to explain c'=c+v until this is unmistakably observed. This has not been done. The breakdown is only in your mind. If it is unmistakably observed, SR will fall. >>> 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. Don't allow your desire to stay out of the herd to make you delude yourself either. >>>>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. I sent you several e-mails this morning. Ask your ISP why you are not getting e-mail from ...lsu.edu addresses. I am not seeing any bounces. -- 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 20:06 On Sat, 21 May 2005 09:44:08 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:irnt81h2oat5octqjhgrl1k7qums14mmhp(a)4ax.com: > >> 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. > >http://www.exo.net/~pauld/physics/relativity/relativitytimefly.htm The H&K has already been declared null and void. GPS clocks change when sent into free fall. So what? >http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html The 'experimenter bias' section tells us all we want to know about the monotonous SRian attempts to prop up their faith. > >.... >>>> 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. > >SR does NOT depend on an aether. None was assumed in the derivation of the >equations. That may be clever. But unless you can show the step where the >assumption MUST have been made, your repeated claim of a disguised >assumption is specious. Look bz, SR is a maths theory based on a postulate that OW light speed will always be measured to have the same value. When it is applied to physical systems, it breaks down into aether theory. It cannot answer my simple question about light from differently moving sources traveling through space together. In fact SR is just an extension of aether theory. Once you assume an observer's rods and clocks contract by gamma with movement through the single absolute aether frame, you will find that measured OWLS will always be c. This is similar to the 'measured sound speed constancy' we discussed except that instead of the observer correcting for his own speed through the air, his measuring sticks are automatically adjusted by that speed. SR and LET are great thoeries...except for the fact that there isn't any universal aether. > >>>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. > >bullets have mass. Photons do not. They obey different laws. HoHoHahahaha! > >>>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. > >Why should photons emitted by moving charged particles obey different laws >from other photons? Are you taking lessons from Paul Andersen? Yo are starting to distort what I said to avoid having to answer difficult questions. > >> OWLS from a moving source has never been measured. > >OWLS is not required to disprove BaT. TOFLS will suffice. TOFLS can be either OW or TW. What are you trying to say? >>>> 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. > >Many people say that photons are dimensionless points. They haven't the faintest idea what light is. > >>>> 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. > >None have shown him wrong. That is what is required to invalidate SR. That is not true. There is a long list of experiments that show SR to be incorrect in the reference you just gave me. They are all discarded by the establishment on account of 'experimentor bias'. >>>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 exhibit properties. >That means that photons are not nothing. They are something. > >Define this 'size' thing you want to measure. The universe has NO absolute form but we know it (psychologically) as a 3D spatial world with '3 axes at right angles'. All our observations are in 3D space plus 1D time. Any physical entity that reacts in any way with our known physical world must be expressible in terms of these 4 items. >> You just argued that they WERE zero space. >> Please make up your mind. > >I did NOT argue they were zero space. I argued that the term 'size' is >meaningless wrt photons unless you define how you are going to measure >'size'. Right. You accept photons occupy space. Let's speculate! What might make them different from 'zero space'? They possess fields......but what is a field? > >Any measure of 'size' that uses in any way the frequency, wavelength, >energy, polarization, angular momentum, or velocity of matter will show >'size'. I don't see the logic in that statement. > >.... >>>> 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) > >SR does NOT say it is non-inertial in either case. It says that the >observer can not distinguise. That's a different issue. ....the equivalence principle. > >.... >>>> 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 isolated object can not detect a force acting upon it. Yes it can. A spring acelerometer will do it. Objects in free fall don't have a force acting on them according to GR. >> 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. > >You misunderstand SR and free fall. > >As long as everything within a frame of reference is in a state of constant >velocity then an observer within that frame can not distinguish his >condition from free fall. I can give an example where that doesn't apply. Drop an object from a high tower. As it passes you, you jump off your own lower tower. Both you and the object are now in the same state of free fall ..... but it is moving relative to you. GR cannot explain this problem. > >>>2. The velocity of light has the same value in all inertial systems. >>>[unquote] >> >> That's a postulate, not a law. > >It was stated as a postulate. You just repeated what was said. Postulates are NOT truths. Please don't refer to them as though they are. > >>>>>> 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. Sorry, actually it will. > >A spring accelerometer can only tell you if some force is acting upon the >mass in the accelerometer in a different manner from the action upon the >case of the accelerometer. It can not tell you why. Why would you want to know 'why'. A spring accelerometer is a measuring device. It will tell you the size of the force acting on you. > >>>>>> An object in free fall is inertial, according to SR. >>> >>>NO. >> >> yes, ask any SRian. >> >> space curves to make it inertial. > >The curving of space is GR, not SR. >http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~ryden/ast162_6/notes24.html > >Perhaps your confusion over the distinction between SR and GR is leading >you astray. Yours is. GR changes the spatial scales so that light speed remains constant ihn a gravity well. I also defines force as F=ma....whereas in fact that equation is only physically valid as: a=F/m. >>>> 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 > >YOU seem to have SR and GR confused. It would not be hard to misunderstand or confuse two theories that epitomies the very meaning of the words 'confusion' and 'misunderstanding'. >> >> Do you you know what a 'geodesic' is? > >Now you are trying to feed me a line. >Geodesics curve under the influence of mass per GR. Light moves at constant speed along a geodesic...according to GR. > >Again, you confuse SR and GR. It would not be hard to misunderstand or confuse two theories that epitomies the very meaning of the words 'confusion' and 'misunderstanding'. > >>>>>[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. > >If expermental data had clearly show that c'=c+v, Einstein would have never >postulated that c is constant. What a silly thing to say. THAT IS HIS SECOND POSTULATE. It simply reiterated the aether principle mathematically.... that light is a wavelike disturbance in a medium. > >Science ever works from data to theory to predictions. Einsteines >postulates would have been useless if they were not based on experimental >data. > >You waste time and energy arguing about this point. You should read up on your physics history. You are starting to make a fool of yourself. By 1905, many experiments suggested that TWLS appeared to be constant when all parts of the experiment were mutually at rest. That's all. Einstein merely redefined clock synching so that OWLS always =TWLS.....EVEN IF AN AETHER EXISTED!!! > >>>>>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. > >GR. >Your claim is that SR is false. You can not disprove SR by attacking GR. There are aspects of GR that agree with hte BaT.... just as there are aspects of Earth centrism that can produce meaningful answers. > >>>[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. > >It is inertial to the observer inside the box and to any other observer in >an inertial frame that is at a constant velocity wrt the box. That is what >SR says. that's probably part of the story. If you again consider my example above regarding two objects falling from different heights. They are both inertial. ...yet the distance between them is increasing.. What is going on? >>>> >>>> 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. > >It doesn't care. No do most DHRs apparently. >>>>>> >>>>>> 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. > >You asked the 'Why' question. Science doesn't answer 'why' questions. If >you want those kinds of answers, go to church. HoHo hahah! The Ensteinian church? > >>>> 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. > >It does NOT need to explain c'=c+v until this is unmistakably observed. >This has not been done. The breakdown is only in your mind. It has to explain 'c'. It cannot, without resorting to LET. > >If it is unmistakably observed, SR will fall. It will be, very soon. > >>>> 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. > >Don't allow your desire to stay out of the herd to make you delude yourself >either. There are enough flaws in Einsteinian relativity for a five yo kids to conclude it cannot be correct. >>> >>>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. > >I sent you several e-mails this morning. Ask your ISP why you are not >getting e-mail from ...lsu.edu addresses. I am not seeing any bounces. I am getting it. 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 22 May 2005 13:21 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:rhev81d329c46jmn0iri21b0e7da4l4e8p(a)4ax.com: > On Sat, 21 May 2005 09:44:08 +0000 (UTC), bz > <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > >>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>news:irnt81h2oat5octqjhgrl1k7qums14mmhp(a)4ax.com: >> >>> 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. >> >>http://www.exo.net/~pauld/physics/relativity/relativitytimefly.htm > > The H&K has already been declared null and void. Documentations? I don't know of many experiments that have ever been declared null and void. Experiments may be suprceeded by more accurate experiments. Experiments may be shown to be erronious based on faulty equipment. Experiments may be shown to be erronious based on faulty calculations. Experiments may be shown to be erronious based on faulty design of the experiment. Which do you claim is the case for H&K? > GPS clocks change when sent into free fall. So what? All those changes are consistent with SR. >>http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html > > The 'experimenter bias' section tells us all we want to know about the > monotonous SRian attempts to prop up their faith. It takes much care to avoid experimental bias. SRians are not the only ones that suffer from that illness. ..... >>>>> 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. >> >>SR does NOT depend on an aether. None was assumed in the derivation of >>the equations. That may be clever. But unless you can show the step >>where the assumption MUST have been made, your repeated claim of a >>disguised assumption is specious. > > Look bz, SR is a maths theory based on a postulate that OW light speed > will always be measured to have the same value. Right. > When it is applied to physical systems, it breaks down into aether > theory. No. It doesn't break down into aether theory, it shows that aether theory is not needed. > It cannot answer my simple question about light from differently > moving sources traveling through space together. > > In fact SR is just an extension of aether theory. I understand this is true 'in your opinion'. That is not 'in fact'. Do not confuse opinions with facts. > Once you assume an observer's rods and clocks contract by gamma with > movement through the single absolute aether frame, you will find that > measured OWLS will always be c. No. There is no 'single absolute aether frame' needed by SR. > This is similar to the 'measured sound speed constancy' we discussed > except that instead of the observer correcting for his own speed through > the air, his measuring sticks are automatically adjusted by that speed. No aether is required. > SR and LET are great thoeries...except for the fact that there isn't any > universal aether. SR and GR do not require an aether. >>>>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. >> >>bullets have mass. Photons do not. They obey different laws. > > HoHoHahahaha! I copied the reasoning that you used when you said 'charged particles obey different laws' to me. >>>>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. >> >>Why should photons emitted by moving charged particles obey different >>laws from other photons? > > Are you taking lessons from Paul Andersen? > Yo are starting to distort what I said to avoid having to answer > difficult questions. What difficult question are you talking about? How did I distort your answer? >>> OWLS from a moving source has never been measured. >> >>OWLS is not required to disprove BaT. TOFLS will suffice. > > TOFLS can be either OW or TW. What are you trying to say? I am saying that Time of flight light speed determination will suffice. We don't need a rigorous 'one way light speed' determination in order to demonstrate that the speed of the photons is not changed by the speed of the source. >>>>> 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. >> >>Many people say that photons are dimensionless points. > > They haven't the faintest idea what light is. Do you? >>>>> 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. >> >>None have shown him wrong. That is what is required to invalidate SR. > That is not true. > There is a long list of experiments that show SR to be incorrect in the > reference you just gave me. > They are all discarded by the establishment on account of 'experimentor > bias'. They are discarded for good reasons. Did you read why they are discarded? Science doesn't try to hid these things, it puts them out in the open so that others can run better experiments. >>>>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 exhibit properties. >>That means that photons are not nothing. They are something. >> >>Define this 'size' thing you want to measure. > > The universe has NO absolute form but we know it (psychologically) as a > 3D spatial world with '3 axes at right angles'. All our observations are > in 3D space plus 1D time. > Any physical entity that reacts in any way with our known physical world > must be expressible in terms of these 4 items. Not true. Many things react with our physical world but are not so expressable. We use their effects on OTHER things to tell us about them. There are many meaningless questions that one can ask. 'what is the size of a photon?' 'what color is a magnetic field?' 'what does an electric field smell like?' >>> You just argued that they WERE zero space. >>> Please make up your mind. >> >>I did NOT argue they were zero space. I argued that the term 'size' is >>meaningless wrt photons unless you define how you are going to measure >>'size'. > > Right. You accept photons occupy space. No. I say that we can not say they don't occupy space. Much different than asserting that they do occupy space. > Let's speculate! What might make them different from 'zero space'? They have frequency, wavelength, energy, polarization, angular momentum, velocity. > They possess fields......but what is a field? Maxwell's equations answer that question. >>Any measure of 'size' that uses in any way the frequency, wavelength, >>energy, polarization, angular momentum, or velocity of matter will show >>'size'. > > I don't see the logic in that statement. There is no logic in asking what the size of a photon is unless you define 'size' and say how you will relate it to photons. 'Size' is defined by how you measure things. What can you measure about a photon? Which of those things do you want to call size? Pick one. There is NO other useful meaning of the word 'size' as applied to photons. Find a way to measure something that you want to call size, and that will then be 'size' once you can convince others to use the same measure. ..... >>>>> 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) >> >>SR does NOT say it is non-inertial in either case. It says that the >>observer can not distinguise. > > That's a different issue. ....the equivalence principle. It is important to realize what is said and what is not said. ..... >>>>> 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 isolated object can not detect a force acting upon it. > > Yes it can. > A spring acelerometer will do it. An accelerometer is at least three objects. A mass, a spring and the case that holds the mass and spring. > Objects in free fall don't have a force acting on them according to GR. You are wrong. Objects in free fall can not tell that they have a force acting upon them without looking outside. >>> 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. >> >>You misunderstand SR and free fall. >> >>As long as everything within a frame of reference is in a state of >>constant velocity then an observer within that frame can not distinguish >>his condition from free fall. > > I can give an example where that doesn't apply. > > Drop an object from a high tower. It is accelerating wrt your Frame of Reference. > As it passes you, you jump off your > own lower tower. You take your frame of reference with you. The object continues to accelerate wrt your FoR. You accelerate wrt the tower's FoR (and the ground, which shares the towers FoR). > Both you and the object are now in the same state of free fall Not the same state. You are each in free fall. You each experience the same force of gravity and accelerate at the same rate. But you do not have the same velocity. It is moving at a constant velocity wrt you. > ..... but > it is moving relative to you. yes, at a constant velocity. > GR cannot explain this problem. You are quite wrong about that. I just explained it. You don't need GR. You don't need SR. You just need simple physics/mechanics. If you are confused by this, it is no wonder that you are having problems with SR and GR. v(t)=v_0+a.t Your velocity at any time (until object hits earth) is going to be less than the velocity of object. Assume the object has been dropping for 5 seconds when it reaches you. It is traveling at 49 m/s. You jump. In 5 seconds, you are traveling 49 m/s wrt your tower/ground, the object is traveling 98 m/s wrt t/g , 49 m/s wrt you. In 5 more seconds, it will be traveling 147.1 m/s wrt the ground, you will be traveing 98 m/w wrt grount, it will be traveling 49 ms wrt you. You are now in the same inertial frame that it is because your velocity wrt it is constant. But you are not moving at the same velocity that it is moving. Neither of you is in an inertial frame wrt the earth. >>>>2. The velocity of light has the same value in all inertial systems. >>>>[unquote] >>> >>> That's a postulate, not a law. >> >>It was stated as a postulate. You just repeated what was said. > > Postulates are NOT truths. Please don't refer to them as though they > are. Postulates are assumed to be truths. Predictions are made based upon them. If the predictions prove to be correct, the postulates stand until they are falsified. The postulates of SR stand. >>>>>>> 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. > > Sorry, actually it will. Don't bet your life on it. If you are in free fall in orbit around the earth, you are not in an interial state wrt the earth. You are constantly accelerating. Your accelerometer will not show the acceleration, however. In an orbit, you can define your FoR as the ship, for a while. If you are in free fall, falling from orbit, you are not in an intertial state wrt the earth. Your accelerometer will not show the acceleration, however. You are in an inertial frame wrt your ship, but wrt that frame, you are about to get hit by a huge planet that is in accelerated motion toward you. And your accelerometer isn't going to show you a thing about that. >>A spring accelerometer can only tell you if some force is acting upon >>the mass in the accelerometer in a different manner from the action upon >>the case of the accelerometer. It can not tell you why. > > Why would you want to know 'why'. A spring accelerometer is a measuring > device. It will tell you the size of the force acting on you. You might want to know why because you were in a space ship. Let's say you have been unconcious and wake up in the control room. Most of your instruments are out of order. Your accelerometer is measuring 1 g. It would be important to know if the ship was sitting on the ground, hovering a few hundred feet above the ground or halfway to mars. Your life may depend on the right answer. The accelerometer can't tell you why it is measuring 1 g. >>>>>>> An object in free fall is inertial, according to SR. >>>> >>>>NO. >>> >>> yes, ask any SRian. >>> >>> space curves to make it inertial. >> >>The curving of space is GR, not SR. >>http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~ryden/ast162_6/notes24.html >> >>Perhaps your confusion over the distinction between SR and GR is leading >>you astray. > > Yours is. We were talking of SR. You brought in a distorted view of GR and called it SR. > GR changes the spatial scales so that light speed remains constant ihn a > gravity well. > I also defines force as F=ma....whereas in fact that equation is only > physically valid as: a=F/m. F=ma is valid in more cases than a=F/m. a=F/m is meaningless when m=0. >>>>> 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. Shall we get back to discussing SR. You were talking of GR and you were missapplying it. >>>>Either I misunderstand SR, or you do. >>> >>> you do >> >>YOU seem to have SR and GR confused. > > It would not be hard to misunderstand or confuse two theories that > epitomies the very meaning of the words 'confusion' and > 'misunderstanding'. Easy or hard doesn't matter. When you attack SRians for features that are exclusive to GR, you waste your energy. >>> Do you you know what a 'geodesic' is? >> >>Now you are trying to feed me a line. >>Geodesics curve under the influence of mass per GR. > > Light moves at constant speed along a geodesic...according to GR. Right. SR doesn't speak of geodesics. SR doesn't speak of curved space. SR doesn't address the effects of gravity on space. >>Again, you confuse SR and GR. > > It would not be hard to misunderstand or confuse two theories that > epitomies the very meaning of the words 'confusion' and > 'misunderstanding'. If you intend to attack the weaknesses of a theory, attack the right theory. >>>>>>[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. >> >>If expermental data had clearly show that c'=c+v, Einstein would have >>never postulated that c is constant. > What a silly thing to say. THAT IS HIS SECOND POSTULATE. It is NOT a silly thing to say. If data had shown that c'=c+v he would never have postulated the c is constant, his postulate would have been consistent with c'=c+v. > It simply reiterated the aether principle mathematically.... that light > is a wavelike disturbance in a medium. It did NOT reiterate the aether principle. It resolve the conflict between the aether principle and the fact that observations indicated no significant motion wrt any hypothetical aether. "Physicists of the nineteen centry, influenced as they then were by a false analogy between light waves and sound waves .... postulated the existance of an ether, .... The ether concept, although it proved useful for many years, did not survive the test of experiments." [p 658 of K&R Fundamentals of Physics] >>Science ever works from data to theory to predictions. Einsteines >>postulates would have been useless if they were not based on >>experimental data. >> >>You waste time and energy arguing about this point. > > You should read up on your physics history. > You are starting to make a fool of yourself. I'll take responsibility for how I look. I don't mind finding out that I am wrong. I learn that way. > By 1905, many experiments suggested that TWLS appeared to be constant > when all parts of the experiment were mutually at rest. That's all. Experments since then continue to confirm the predictions of SR. The Ives- Stilwell Experiment gives results that are inconsitent with classical theory, inconsistent with BaT, but are consistent with SR. > Einstein merely redefined clock synching so that OWLS always > =TWLS.....EVEN IF AN AETHER EXISTED!!! You act like this is against some rule. You sound like you think Einstein 'cheated' when he did this. Clue: it isn't against the rules. The fact is that SR works if there is an aether and it works if there isn't an aether. It works no matter what ones motion is wrt the [if it exists] aether. It doesn't make his theory an aether theory, in fact his theory is independent of the existance of an aether. >>>>>>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. >> >>GR. >>Your claim is that SR is false. You can not disprove SR by attacking GR. > > There are aspects of GR that agree with hte BaT.... just as there are > aspects of Earth centrism that can produce meaningful answers. BaT predicts c'=c+/-v. Both SR and GR rule that out. BaT is NOT consistent with SR nor GR. >>>>[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. >> >>It is inertial to the observer inside the box and to any other observer >>in an inertial frame that is at a constant velocity wrt the box. That is >>what SR says. > > that's probably part of the story. That is the story. That is how SR defines an inertial FoR. If you want to talk about SR, you use SR language and definitions. > If you again consider my example above regarding two objects falling > from different heights. > They are both inertial. ...yet the distance between them is increasing.. > What is going on? They are each interial in their own framwork. They are not inertial wrt each other. They don't share the same frame work unless they started their fall at the same time in the same uniform g field. >>>>>>> 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. >> >>You asked the 'Why' question. Science doesn't answer 'why' questions. If >>you want those kinds of answers, go to church. > > HoHo hahah! > The Ensteinian church? No, the BaTian church seems to be your place of worship. You seem to put your faith there, to the exclusion of being willing to look at other theories with an open mind. I do not worship at the SRian or the BaTer altar. I am examining both with an open mind. >>>>> 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. >> >>It does NOT need to explain c'=c+v until this is unmistakably observed. >>This has not been done. The breakdown is only in your mind. > > It has to explain 'c'. Science does not need to explain WHY the velocity of c is constant as measured by all observers. > It cannot, without resorting to LET. You see it as LET. That does not make it so. >>If it is unmistakably observed, SR will fall. > > It will be, very soon. I wish you the best of luck. >>>>> 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. >> >>Don't allow your desire to stay out of the herd to make you delude >>yourself either. > > There are enough flaws in Einsteinian relativity for a five yo kids to > conclude it cannot be correct. Some of the best minds on earth have studied his theories. Doesn't it amaze you that no one has succeeded in invalidating it? -- 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: The Ghost In The Machine on 22 May 2005 16:00 In sci.physics, bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote on Sun, 22 May 2005 17:21:14 +0000 (UTC) <Xns965E7DB5C4194WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139>: > H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in > news:rhev81d329c46jmn0iri21b0e7da4l4e8p(a)4ax.com: > >> On Sat, 21 May 2005 09:44:08 +0000 (UTC), bz >> <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >> >>>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>>news:irnt81h2oat5octqjhgrl1k7qums14mmhp(a)4ax.com: >>> >>>> 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. >>> >>>http://www.exo.net/~pauld/physics/relativity/relativitytimefly.htm >> >> The H&K has already been declared null and void. > > Documentations? I don't know of many experiments that have ever been > declared null and void. Damage to the clocks during shipment would be my guess. Of course, there's the question of *who* declared it null and void -- I doubt it's the reputable scientist contingent. > > Experiments may be suprceeded by more accurate experiments. Experiments may > be shown to be erronious based on faulty equipment. Experiments may be > shown to be erronious based on faulty calculations. Experiments may be > shown to be erronious based on faulty design of the experiment. > > Which do you claim is the case for H&K? > >> GPS clocks change when sent into free fall. So what? > > All those changes are consistent with SR. And with all clocks. This in itself is suspicious, in the sense that one cannot claim clock damage if every clock ever devised by mankind, from a relatively crude quartz crystal affair to the still-experimental (AFAIK?) mercury ion clocks, are showing the exact same difference when launched into satellites. > >>>http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html >> >> The 'experimenter bias' section tells us all we want to know about the >> monotonous SRian attempts to prop up their faith. > > It takes much care to avoid experimental bias. > > SRians are not the only ones that suffer from that illness. Theorem: All odd numbers are prime. Proof: Well, 3 is prime. 5 is prime. 7 is prime. 9 is -- oops, bad datapoint. 11 is prime. 13 is prime. Therefore, by extrapolation, the theorem follows. :-) > > .... >>>>>> 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. >>> >>>SR does NOT depend on an aether. None was assumed in the derivation of >>>the equations. That may be clever. But unless you can show the step >>>where the assumption MUST have been made, your repeated claim of a >>>disguised assumption is specious. >> >> Look bz, SR is a maths theory based on a postulate that OW light speed >> will always be measured to have the same value. > > Right. > >> When it is applied to physical systems, it breaks down into aether >> theory. > > No. It doesn't break down into aether theory, it shows that aether theory > is not needed. I'm not sure how either Emissive or SR/GTR are "aether theory" anyway. The classical luminiferous aether theory had the following postulates: [1] There exists a rigid, inflexible aether which does not interact with matter except as postulated below. [2] Lightspeed is c relative to that aether. [3] Acceleration and velocity are as specified by Newton. Emissive theory drops postulate [1], and substitutes for [2] [2'] Lightspeed c is relative to the source. SR uses [2"] Lightspeed is c everywhere. and modifies [3], twisting space and time to make [2"] fit. While SR is bizarre, the Universe so far has validated it. > >> It cannot answer my simple question about light from differently >> moving sources traveling through space together. >> >> In fact SR is just an extension of aether theory. > > I understand this is true 'in your opinion'. That is not 'in fact'. > Do not confuse opinions with facts. I'm not sure how aether theory is any sort of fact anyway, as it's not measurable. This in itself should leave the physicists scratching their heads. (Items such as string and brane theory are similarly problematic. I can't say I like dark energy either.) > >> Once you assume an observer's rods and clocks contract by gamma with >> movement through the single absolute aether frame, you will find that >> measured OWLS will always be c. > > No. There is no 'single absolute aether frame' needed by SR. Applied correctly, one can show that a shift in absolute origin or origin motion does not change relative velocity results. (This is also true of BaT/emissive theory.) > >> This is similar to the 'measured sound speed constancy' we discussed >> except that instead of the observer correcting for his own speed through >> the air, his measuring sticks are automatically adjusted by that speed. > > No aether is required. > >> SR and LET are great thoeries...except for the fact that there isn't any >> universal aether. > > SR and GR do not require an aether. > >>>>>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. >>> >>>bullets have mass. Photons do not. They obey different laws. >> >> HoHoHahahaha! > > I copied the reasoning that you used when you said 'charged particles obey > different laws' to me. > >>>>>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. >>> >>>Why should photons emitted by moving charged particles obey different >>>laws from other photons? >> >> Are you taking lessons from Paul Andersen? >> Yo are starting to distort what I said to avoid having to answer >> difficult questions. > > What difficult question are you talking about? How did I distort your > answer? > >>>> OWLS from a moving source has never been measured. >>> >>>OWLS is not required to disprove BaT. TOFLS will suffice. >> >> TOFLS can be either OW or TW. What are you trying to say? > > I am saying that Time of flight light speed determination > will suffice. We don't need a rigorous 'one way light speed' > determination in order to demonstrate that the speed of the > photons is not changed by the speed of the source. Not that OWLS is all that possible anyway. Single-clock measurements are inherently TWLS unless one postulates the signal slowing down (e.g., in electrical cables) between the measurement points. Double-clock measurements are possible but the clocks would have to be carefully synchronized beforehand, and the only ppssible method that makes sense is by lightbeams after they've been moved into position. Even then, there are problems -- Boulder, Colorado's clock is reputed to run fast relative to Paris, for example, because of its elevation. Is Boulder's clock broken? :-) > >>>>>> 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. >>> >>>Many people say that photons are dimensionless points. >> >> They haven't the faintest idea what light is. > > Do you? Light is. At this point I'm not sure how to explain *what* light is; it just is. :-) We do know, however, that: [1] it can be generated by an antenna or by hot objects -- the former leads to some very exciting work in the field of nanopipettes (about 1000-2500 atoms in length), and the latter has been known since man struck the first spark or thereabouts, although he may not have known it as light as such, just as a hot glowing thing. [2] it has been measured to have speed c by a variety of methods, all yielding the exact same results (within measurement error), with the possible exception of Ole Rømer, and his result is excusable because of bad information regarding Jupiter's distance from Earth (back in 1676). Actually, it turns out I'm not quite correct: the chart in http://www.sigma-engineering.co.uk/light/lightindex.shtml shows that lightspeed has been correctly measured to be its current value (within experimental error) only since World War II, except for three measurements in the 1900-1925 timeframe, two of which have rather large errors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interferometer makes the interesting claim (which disproves BaT) of the MMX being measured using starlight as the light source. (Considering that MMX cannot disprove BaT without a moving source this is a logical thing to attempt, though I don't know how bright the star would have to be to generate a usable interferometer. However, since an interferometer simply requires one to be able to see the light it's probably not a big issue -- but there are problems regarding the apparatus rigidity.) [3] it knocks out electrons from atoms if it's the right wavelength; this leads to some very accurate measurement possibilities, as Compton discovered long ago. The flip side of this of course is also possible, and leads to such things as neon signs and xenon flashtubes, and modern fluorescent tubes (which cheat a bit because of the phosphor coating; the active element is a ultraviolet stimulus). [4] at the right frequencies it can pluck out particle pairs, that immediately recombine unless one of them quickly drops into a black hole. > >>>>>> 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. >>> >>>None have shown him wrong. That is what is required to invalidate SR. > >> That is not true. >> There is a long list of experiments that show SR to be incorrect in the >> reference you just gave me. >> They are all discarded by the establishment on account of 'experimentor >> bias'. > > They are discarded for good reasons. Did you read why they are discarded? > > Science doesn't try to hid these things, it puts them out in the open so > that others can run better experiments. I'd be interested in the raw data, myself -- but suspect the usual culprits: sloppiness, inability to specify the expected result, performance error, and experimenter bias. Kenseto's work in particular falls into the "non-specification" bucket; anyone with a lick of sense would at least want to contemplate a ~10^-4 c variability, since that's the Earth's orbital speed. MMX using absolute aether principles, 10^-4 c velocity with respect to the rigid aether, 500 nm light, and a lightpath of 10m would show a discrepancy of 20,000 or so wavelengths. > >>>>>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 exhibit properties. >>>That means that photons are not nothing. They are something. >>> >>>Define this 'size' thing you want to measure. >> >> The universe has NO absolute form but we know it (psychologically) as a >> 3D spatial world with '3 axes at right angles'. All our observations are >> in 3D space plus 1D time. This isn't quite true, if I understand various theories correctly (I'm a layperson, however); there are about 14 dimensions or so, 11 of which are degenerate. Most of these dimensions are far smaller than pint size. However, I'm not all that competent to explain all this -- and it's not of that much relevance to sci.physics.relativity. >> Any physical entity that reacts in any way with our known physical world >> must be expressible in terms of these 4 items. > > Not true. Many things react with our physical world but are not so > expressable. > > We use their effects on OTHER things to tell us about them. > > There are many meaningless questions that one can ask. > > 'what is the size of a photon?' That one may not be all that meaningless, though one has to specify it carefully. The issues are similar to measuring a moving rod in SR, only worse. There's a concept called Airy radius; briefly put, it's the smallest possible size one can focus a beam of monochromatic light into. (I'm not sure if it's required to be coherent or not.) > 'what color is a magnetic field?' > 'what does an electric field smell like?' You may want to look up "synesthesia". I feel somewhat sorry for anyone who has that particular condition, although it's not directly life-threatening -- but it must be very peculiar to smell colors and see tastes. (I liken it to bleedover from the various parts of the brain analyzing our senses. It has to be very weird.) > >>>> You just argued that they WERE zero space. >>>> Please make up your mind. >>> >>>I did NOT argue they were zero space. I argued that the term 'size' is >>>meaningless wrt photons unless you define how you are going to measure >>>'size'. >> >> Right. You accept photons occupy space. > > No. I say that we can not say they don't occupy space. Much different than > asserting that they do occupy space. > >> Let's speculate! What might make them different from 'zero space'? > > They have frequency, wavelength, energy, polarization, angular momentum, > velocity. And quantity. :-) A 100W 500nm lightsource will radiate about 2.5 * 10^20 photons per second. The Sun is about a 3.94 * 10^26 W light bulb, and in order to correctly calculate the photons emanating therefrom I'd have to study blackbody radiation theory. Let's just say: it's a lot. > >> They possess fields......but what is a field? > > Maxwell's equations answer that question. Actually, they don't -- but they do yield measurable, verifiable results, which for a physicist is good enough. :-) > >>>Any measure of 'size' that uses in any way the frequency, wavelength, >>>energy, polarization, angular momentum, or velocity of matter will show >>>'size'. >> >> I don't see the logic in that statement. > > There is no logic in asking what the size of a photon is unless you define > 'size' and say how you will relate it to photons. > > 'Size' is defined by how you measure things. > > What can you measure about a photon? Which of those things do you want to > call size? Pick one. > > There is NO other useful meaning of the word 'size' as applied to photons. > > Find a way to measure something that you want to call size, and that will > then be 'size' once you can convince others to use the same measure. > > .... > >>>>>> 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) >>> >>>SR does NOT say it is non-inertial in either case. It says that the >>>observer can not distinguise. >> >> That's a different issue. ....the equivalence principle. > > It is important to realize what is said and what is not said. > > .... >>>>>> 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 isolated object can not detect a force acting upon it. >> >> Yes it can. >> A spring acelerometer will do it. > > An accelerometer is at least three objects. A mass, a spring and the case > that holds the mass and spring. > >> Objects in free fall don't have a force acting on them according to GR. > > You are wrong. > > Objects in free fall can not tell that they have a force acting upon them > without looking outside. There's a few quirks in there, though. Tidal forces in particular affect both Earth and very small elastic spheres (one contemplates measuring water droplets) on such as the Space Shuttle or the ISS. > >>>> 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. >>> >>>You misunderstand SR and free fall. >>> >>>As long as everything within a frame of reference is in a state of >>>constant velocity then an observer within that frame can not distinguish >>>his condition from free fall. >> >> I can give an example where that doesn't apply. >> >> Drop an object from a high tower. > > It is accelerating wrt your Frame of Reference. > >> As it passes you, you jump off your >> own lower tower. > > You take your frame of reference with you. The object continues to > accelerate wrt your FoR. You accelerate wrt the tower's FoR (and the > ground, which shares the towers FoR). > >> Both you and the object are now in the same state of free fall > > Not the same state. > > You are each in free fall. You each experience the same force of gravity > and accelerate at the same rate. But you do not have the same velocity. It > is moving at a constant velocity wrt you. > >> ..... but >> it is moving relative to you. > > yes, at a constant velocity. > >> GR cannot explain this problem. > > You are quite wrong about that. I just explained it. You don't > need GR. You don't need SR. You just need simple > physics/mechanics. The error in this assumption is on the order of 5 * 10^-14; the maximum contemplative velocity is that reached after traveling 500 m or so (taking approximately 10 seconds). This velocity is 100 m/s = 3.33 * 10^-7 c. (The height of the Petronas towers is about 450 m. There is a taller structure in Toronto of 550 m or so, but it does not have habitation/office space.) > If you are confused > by this, it is no wonder that you are having problems with SR and GR. > > v(t)=v_0+a.t > > Your velocity at any time (until object hits earth) is going to be less > than the velocity of object. > > Assume the object has been dropping for 5 seconds when it reaches you. > It is traveling at 49 m/s. This necessitates a travel distance of approximately 125 m. > > You jump. In 5 seconds, you are traveling 49 m/s wrt your tower/ground, the > object is traveling 98 m/s wrt t/g , 49 m/s wrt you. The object now has traveled 500m. You have traveled 125m. > > In 5 more seconds, it will be traveling 147.1 m/s wrt the ground, you will > be traveing 98 m/w wrt grount, it will be traveling 49 ms wrt you. The object now has traveled 1,125 m. You have traveled 500m. > > You are now in the same inertial frame that it is because your velocity wrt > it is constant. But you are not moving at the same velocity that it is > moving. I'm not sure about that. The object is moving relative to you; it therefore is not in the same frame. > > Neither of you is in an inertial frame wrt the earth. > > >>>>>2. The velocity of light has the same value in all inertial systems. >>>>>[unquote] >>>> >>>> That's a postulate, not a law. >>> >>>It was stated as a postulate. You just repeated what was said. >> >> Postulates are NOT truths. Please don't refer to them as though they >> are. > > Postulates are assumed to be truths. Predictions are made based upon them. > If the predictions prove to be correct, the postulates stand until they are > falsified. The postulates of SR stand. For now, at least. We'll see come sometime in August or September, and even then Uncle Al's results will probably be "upwardly compatible" with current SR/GTR theory, in much the same fashion as SR/GTR theory is "upwardly compatible" with Newtonian theory, when v << c. > >>>>>>>> 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. >> >> Sorry, actually it will. > > Don't bet your life on it. > > If you are in free fall in orbit around the earth, you are not in an > interial state wrt the earth. You are constantly accelerating. Your > accelerometer will not show the acceleration, however. In an orbit, you can > define your FoR as the ship, for a while. Admittedly, this is one bit in GR that confuses me. Of course I can trot out the old rubber-sheet or funnel metaphor (the Earth is in the neck of the funnel) and roll a marble; the marble exerts a force on the rubber (and the rubber dimples in response) or on the plastic, but is otherwise moving in what one might call a "rubberdesic". It's certainly not a straight line, to be sure -- but it's a line of constant energy. (Not kinetic energy, to be sure -- elliptical orbits are common -- but total energy.) Even light has to move in a constant-energy geodesic/heliodesic/etc. > > If you are in free fall, falling from orbit, you are not in an intertial > state wrt the earth. Your accelerometer will not show the acceleration, > however. You are in an inertial frame wrt your ship, but wrt that frame, > you are about to get hit by a huge planet that is in accelerated motion > toward you. And your accelerometer isn't going to show you a thing about > that. > >>>A spring accelerometer can only tell you if some force is acting upon >>>the mass in the accelerometer in a different manner from the action upon >>>the case of the accelerometer. It can not tell you why. >> >> Why would you want to know 'why'. A spring accelerometer is a measuring >> device. It will tell you the size of the force acting on you. > > You might want to know why because you were in a space ship. > Let's say you have been unconcious and wake up in the control room. Most of > your instruments are out of order. Your accelerometer is measuring 1 g. It > would be important to know if the ship was sitting on the ground, hovering > a few hundred feet above the ground or halfway to mars. Your life may > depend on the right answer. > > The accelerometer can't tell you why it is measuring 1 g. > >>>>>>>> An object in free fall is inertial, according to SR. >>>>> >>>>>NO. >>>> >>>> yes, ask any SRian. >>>> >>>> space curves to make it inertial. >>> >>>The curving of space is GR, not SR. >>>http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~ryden/ast162_6/notes24.html >>> >>>Perhaps your confusion over the distinction between SR and GR is leading >>>you astray. >> >> Yours is. > > We were talking of SR. You brought in a distorted view of GR and called it > SR. > >> GR changes the spatial scales so that light speed remains constant ihn a >> gravity well. >> I also defines force as F=ma....whereas in fact that equation is only >> physically valid as: a=F/m. > > F=ma is valid in more cases than a=F/m. > > a=F/m is meaningless when m=0. Hmm...an interesting contemplation: what is the force of a lightbeam? There has to be one, as quanta have momentum; radiating enough quanta will produce a force or torque -- especially if the item is very light. Since p = mv for massive objects and E/c for light quanta, the best I can do here is F = ma = pa/c = Ea/(c^2), since v = c. However, this implicitly requires the rather ugly pseudomass value m = E/c^2. > >>>>>> 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. > > Shall we get back to discussing SR. You were talking of GR and you were > missapplying it. > >>>>>Either I misunderstand SR, or you do. >>>> >>>> you do >>> >>>YOU seem to have SR and GR confused. >> >> It would not be hard to misunderstand or confuse two theories that >> epitomies the very meaning of the words 'confusion' and >> 'misunderstanding'. > > Easy or hard doesn't matter. When you attack SRians for features that are > exclusive to GR, you waste your energy. > >>>> Do you you know what a 'geodesic' is? >>> >>>Now you are trying to feed me a line. >>>Geodesics curve under the influence of mass per GR. >> >> Light moves at constant speed along a geodesic...according to GR. > > Right. SR doesn't speak of geodesics. SR doesn't speak of curved space. SR > doesn't address the effects of gravity on space. > >>>Again, you confuse SR and GR. >> >> It would not be hard to misunderstand or confuse two theories that >> epitomies the very meaning of the words 'confusion' and >> 'misunderstanding'. > > If you intend to attack the weaknesses of a theory, attack the right > theory. I get the feeling he doesn't like either one. :-) > >>>>>>>[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. >>> >>>If expermental data had clearly show that c'=c+v, Einstein would have >>>never postulated that c is constant. > >> What a silly thing to say. THAT IS HIS SECOND POSTULATE. > > It is NOT a silly thing to say. > If data had shown that c'=c+v he would never have postulated the c is > constant, his postulate would have been consistent with c'=c+v. > >> It simply reiterated the aether principle mathematically.... that light >> is a wavelike disturbance in a medium. > > It did NOT reiterate the aether principle. > > It resolve the conflict between the aether principle and the fact that > observations indicated no significant motion wrt any hypothetical aether. Any hypothetical *rigid* aether. BaT cannot be disproved by MMX with a stationary lightsource. (However, it should be disprovable by using a moving lightsource, such as a star.) > > "Physicists of the nineteen centry, influenced as they then were by a false > analogy between light waves and sound waves .... postulated the existance > of an ether, .... > The ether concept, although it proved useful for many years, did not > survive the test of experiments." [p 658 of K&R Fundamentals of Physics] > >>>Science ever works from data to theory to predictions. Einsteines >>>postulates would have been useless if they were not based on >>>experimental data. >>> >>>You waste time and energy arguing about this point. >> >> You should read up on your physics history. >> You are starting to make a fool of yourself. > > I'll take responsibility for how I look. > I don't mind finding out that I am wrong. > I learn that way. A true scientist's credo, that. Salut. :-) > >> By 1905, many experiments suggested that TWLS appeared to be constant >> when all parts of the experiment were mutually at rest. That's all. > > Experments since then continue to confirm the predictions of SR. The Ives- > Stilwell Experiment gives results that are inconsitent with classical > theory, inconsistent with BaT, but are consistent with SR. That's a new one on me, though fairly straightforward. A quick Google later coughed up http://www.mpi-hd.mpg.de/ato/rel/ Nice experiment. :-) Is it valid, according to H. Wilson? Sure looks valid to me. > >> Einstein merely redefined clock synching so that OWLS always >> =TWLS.....EVEN IF AN AETHER EXISTED!!! > > You act like this is against some rule. You sound like you think Einstein > 'cheated' when he did this. He did. He suckered all of the megagazillions of photons when he first wrote his paper, and they've been loyally following him ever since. :-) After all, photons want to be "in" -- mostly in one's eyeball. > > Clue: it isn't against the rules. > > The fact is that SR works if there is an aether and it works if there isn't > an aether. > > It works no matter what ones motion is wrt the [if it exists] aether. > > It doesn't make his theory an aether theory, in fact his theory is > independent of the existance of an aether. > >>>>>>>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. >>> >>>GR. >>>Your claim is that SR is false. You can not disprove SR by attacking GR. >> >> There are aspects of GR that agree with hte BaT.... just as there are >> aspects of Earth centrism that can produce meaningful answers. > > BaT predicts c'=c+/-v. Both SR and GR rule that out. BaT is NOT consistent > with SR nor GR. > >>>>>[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. >>> >>>It is inertial to the observer inside the box and to any other observer >>>in an inertial frame that is at a constant velocity wrt the box. That is >>>what SR says. >> >> that's probably part of the story. > > That is the story. That is how SR defines an inertial FoR. If you want to > talk about SR, you use SR language and definitions. > >> If you again consider my example above regarding two objects falling >> from different heights. >> They are both inertial. ...yet the distance between them is increasing.. >> What is going on? > > They are each interial in their own framwork. They are not inertial wrt > each other. > > They don't share the same frame work unless they started their fall at the > same time in the same uniform g field. The variance of g from the top of a 500m tower to its base would be on the order of about .1%, if I'm not mistaken. > >>>>>>>> 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. >>> >>>You asked the 'Why' question. Science doesn't answer 'why' questions. If >>>you want those kinds of answers, go to church. >> >> HoHo hahah! >> The Ensteinian church? > > No, the BaTian church seems to be your place of worship. You seem to put > your faith there, to the exclusion of being willing to look at other > theories with an open mind. > > I do not worship at the SRian or the BaTer altar. I am examining both with > an open mind. > >>>>>> 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. >>> >>>It does NOT need to explain c'=c+v until this is unmistakably observed. >>>This has not been done. The breakdown is only in your mind. >> >> It has to explain 'c'. > > Science does not need to explain WHY the velocity of c is constant as > measured by all observers. > >> It cannot, without resorting to LET. > > You see it as LET. That does not make it so. > >>>If it is unmistakably observed, SR will fall. >> >> It will be, very soon. > > I wish you the best of luck. Does this mean he's going to actually fund his triple-rocket experiment? ;-) > >>>>>> 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. >>> >>>Don't allow your desire to stay out of the herd to make you delude >>>yourself either. >> >> There are enough flaws in Einsteinian relativity for a five yo kids to >> conclude it cannot be correct. > > Some of the best minds on earth have studied his theories. > Doesn't it amaze you that no one has succeeded in invalidating it? > > -- #191, ewill3(a)earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless.
From: bz on 22 May 2005 19:10
The Ghost In The Machine <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in news:2537m2-kj4.ln1(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net: > In sci.physics, bz > <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> > on Sun, 22 May 2005 17:21:14 +0000 (UTC) > <Xns965E7DB5C4194WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139>: >> H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >> news:rhev81d329c46jmn0iri21b0e7da4l4e8p(a)4ax.com: >>> On Sat, 21 May 2005 09:44:08 +0000 (UTC), bz >>> <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >>>>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>>>news:irnt81h2oat5octqjhgrl1k7qums14mmhp(a)4ax.com: >>>>> 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: >>>>>>> bz said: >>>>>>>> H said: >>>>>>>>> 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. >>>> >>>>http://www.exo.net/~pauld/physics/relativity/relativitytimefly.htm >>> >>> The H&K has already been declared null and void. >> >> Documentations? I don't know of many experiments that have ever been >> declared null and void. > > Damage to the clocks during shipment would be my guess. Of course, > there's the question of *who* declared it null and void -- I > doubt it's the reputable scientist contingent. > I am waiting for documentation. >> >> Experiments may be suprceeded by more accurate experiments. Experiments >> may be shown to be erronious based on faulty equipment. Experiments may >> be shown to be erronious based on faulty calculations. Experiments may >> be shown to be erronious based on faulty design of the experiment. >> >> Which do you claim is the case for H&K? >> >>> GPS clocks change when sent into free fall. So what? >> >> All those changes are consistent with SR. > > And with all clocks. This in itself is suspicious, in the sense that > one cannot claim clock damage if every clock ever devised by mankind, > from a relatively crude quartz crystal affair to the still-experimental > (AFAIK?) mercury ion clocks, are showing the exact same difference > when launched into satellites. There are many rather stable oscillating systems that can be used to time things. >>>>http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html >>> >>> The 'experimenter bias' section tells us all we want to know about the >>> monotonous SRian attempts to prop up their faith. >> >> It takes much care to avoid experimental bias. >> >> SRians are not the only ones that suffer from that illness. > > Theorem: All odd numbers are prime. > > Proof: > > Well, 3 is prime. 5 is prime. 7 is prime. 9 is -- oops, bad datapoint. > 11 is prime. 13 is prime. Therefore, by extrapolation, the theorem > follows. > >:-) :) Gosh if we discard 15, then 17 is prime too. Theory sounds good to me. :) Many such theories abound on usenet. Each with someone who has discovered the secret that has been holding back science. Often, they have a book for sale that explains it all. >>>>>>> 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. >>>> >>>>SR does NOT depend on an aether. None was assumed in the derivation of >>>>the equations. That may be clever. But unless you can show the step >>>>where the assumption MUST have been made, your repeated claim of a >>>>disguised assumption is specious. >>> >>> Look bz, SR is a maths theory based on a postulate that OW light speed >>> will always be measured to have the same value. >> >> Right. >> >>> When it is applied to physical systems, it breaks down into aether >>> theory. >> >> No. It doesn't break down into aether theory, it shows that aether >> theory is not needed. > > I'm not sure how either Emissive or SR/GTR are "aether theory" anyway. Henri will have to answer that as it is his theory. > The classical luminiferous aether theory had the following postulates: > > [1] There exists a rigid, inflexible aether which does not interact > with matter except as postulated below. > [2] Lightspeed is c relative to that aether. > [3] Acceleration and velocity are as specified by Newton. > > Emissive theory drops postulate [1], and substitutes for [2] > > [2'] Lightspeed c is relative to the source. > > SR uses > > [2"] Lightspeed is c everywhere. > > and modifies [3], twisting space and time to make [2"] fit. While > SR is bizarre, the Universe so far has validated it. Very sucinct. We live in a very strange place. >>> It cannot answer my simple question about light from differently >>> moving sources traveling through space together. >>> >>> In fact SR is just an extension of aether theory. >> >> I understand this is true 'in your opinion'. That is not 'in fact'. >> Do not confuse opinions with facts. > > I'm not sure how aether theory is any sort of fact anyway, as it's > not measurable. This in itself should leave the physicists > scratching their heads. (Items such as string and brane theory > are similarly problematic. I can't say I like dark energy either.) I don't find dark energy elightening either. >>> Once you assume an observer's rods and clocks contract by gamma with >>> movement through the single absolute aether frame, you will find that >>> measured OWLS will always be c. >> >> No. There is no 'single absolute aether frame' needed by SR. > > Applied correctly, one can show that a shift in absolute > origin or origin motion does not change relative velocity > results. (This is also true of BaT/emissive theory.) Right. ..... >>>>> OWLS from a moving source has never been measured. >>>> >>>>OWLS is not required to disprove BaT. TOFLS will suffice. >>> >>> TOFLS can be either OW or TW. What are you trying to say? >> >> I am saying that Time of flight light speed determination >> will suffice. We don't need a rigorous 'one way light speed' >> determination in order to demonstrate that the speed of the >> photons is not changed by the speed of the source. > > Not that OWLS is all that possible anyway. Single-clock measurements > are inherently TWLS unless one postulates the signal slowing down > (e.g., in electrical cables) between the measurement points. > Double-clock measurements are possible but the clocks would > have to be carefully synchronized beforehand, and the only > possible method that makes sense is by lightbeams after they've > been moved into position. I'll settle for comparing results in a Time of Flight experiment, with a captive moving source, as described later in this article and as described in previous articles. > Even then, there are problems -- Boulder, Colorado's clock is > reputed to run fast relative to Paris, for example, because of > its elevation. Is Boulder's clock broken? :-) They aren't in the same inertial frame. :) >>>>>>> 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. >>>> >>>>Many people say that photons are dimensionless points. >>> >>> They haven't the faintest idea what light is. >> >> Do you? > > Light is. At this point I'm not sure how to explain *what* light is; > it just is. :-) We do know, however, that: > > [1] it can be generated by an antenna or by hot objects -- the former > leads to some very exciting work in the field of nanopipettes > (about 1000-2500 atoms in length), and the latter has been > known since man struck the first spark or thereabouts, although > he may not have known it as light as such, just as a hot > glowing thing. > > [2] it has been measured to have speed c by a variety of methods, > all yielding the exact same results (within measurement error), > with the possible exception of Ole Rømer, and his result is > excusable because of bad information regarding Jupiter's > distance from Earth (back in 1676). > > Actually, it turns out I'm not quite correct: the chart in > http://www.sigma-engineering.co.uk/light/lightindex.shtml > shows that lightspeed has been correctly measured to be > its current value (within experimental error) only since > World War II, except for three measurements in the 1900-1925 > timeframe, two of which have rather large errors. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interferometer > makes the interesting claim (which disproves BaT) of > the MMX being measured using starlight as the light source. > (Considering that MMX cannot disprove BaT without a > moving source this is a logical thing to attempt, though > I don't know how bright the star would have to be to > generate a usable interferometer. However, since an > interferometer simply requires one to be able to see > the light it's probably not a big issue -- but there are > problems regarding the apparatus rigidity.) > > [3] it knocks out electrons from atoms if it's the right wavelength; > this leads to some very accurate measurement possibilities, > as Compton discovered long ago. The flip side of this of > course is also possible, and leads to such things as neon > signs and xenon flashtubes, and modern fluorescent tubes > (which cheat a bit because of the phosphor coating; the > active element is a ultraviolet stimulus). > > [4] at the right frequencies it can pluck out particle pairs, > that immediately recombine unless one of them quickly > drops into a black hole. And don't forget that photons cover a much wider spectrum of frequency/wavelength/energy than 'light'. Any concept of light should take this continuum into account. ..... >>>>>>Only a real experiment can show Einstein wrong. None have done so. >>>>> >>>>> None have shown him right, either. >>>> >>>>None have shown him wrong. That is what is required to invalidate SR. >> >>> That is not true. >>> There is a long list of experiments that show SR to be incorrect in >>> the reference you just gave me. >>> They are all discarded by the establishment on account of >>> 'experimentor bias'. >> >> They are discarded for good reasons. Did you read why they are >> discarded? >> >> Science doesn't try to hid these things, it puts them out in the open >> so that others can run better experiments. > > I'd be interested in the raw data, myself -- but suspect the > usual culprits: sloppiness, inability to specify the > expected result, performance error, and experimenter bias. Yep. > > Kenseto's work in particular falls into the "non-specification" > bucket; anyone with a lick of sense would at least want to > contemplate a ~10^-4 c variability, since that's the Earth's > orbital speed. MMX using absolute aether principles, 10^-4 c > velocity with respect to the rigid aether, 500 nm light, and a > lightpath of 10m would show a discrepancy of 20,000 or so wavelengths. That should certainly be detectable :). Either it is or it isn't. :> >>>>>>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 exhibit properties. >>>>That means that photons are not nothing. They are something. >>>> >>>>Define this 'size' thing you want to measure. >>> >>> The universe has NO absolute form but we know it (psychologically) as >>> a 3D spatial world with '3 axes at right angles'. All our observations >>> are in 3D space plus 1D time. > > This isn't quite true, if I understand various theories correctly > (I'm a layperson, however) So am I. > ; there are about 14 dimensions or so, > 11 of which are degenerate. Most of these dimensions are far > smaller than pint size. However, I'm not all that competent to > explain all this -- and it's not of that much relevance to > sci.physics.relativity. String theory may never be testable. That makes it fun philosophy. >>> Any physical entity that reacts in any way with our known physical >>> world must be expressible in terms of these 4 items. >> >> Not true. Many things react with our physical world but are not so >> expressable. >> >> We use their effects on OTHER things to tell us about them. >> >> There are many meaningless questions that one can ask. >> >> 'what is the size of a photon?' > > That one may not be all that meaningless, though one has to specify > it carefully. The issues are similar to measuring a moving rod > in SR, only worse. > > There's a concept called Airy radius; briefly put, it's the > smallest possible size one can focus a beam of monochromatic > light into. (I'm not sure if it's required to be coherent or > not.) That is one measureable way to define size. It doesn't apply to single photons, however. >> 'what color is a magnetic field?' >> 'what does an electric field smell like?' > > You may want to look up "synesthesia". I feel somewhat > sorry for anyone who has that particular condition, > although it's not directly life-threatening -- but it > must be very peculiar to smell colors and see tastes. > (I liken it to bleedover from the various parts of > the brain analyzing our senses. It has to be very weird.) I would imagine. I remember a SF story where the main character underwent such an effect during travels through time. >>>>> You just argued that they WERE zero space. >>>>> Please make up your mind. >>>> >>>>I did NOT argue they were zero space. I argued that the term 'size' is >>>>meaningless wrt photons unless you define how you are going to measure >>>>'size'. >>> >>> Right. You accept photons occupy space. >> >> No. I say that we can not say they don't occupy space. Much different >> than asserting that they do occupy space. >> >>> Let's speculate! What might make them different from 'zero space'? >> >> They have frequency, wavelength, energy, polarization, angular >> momentum, velocity. > > And quantity. :-) yep, unless we are discussing a single photon. :) > A 100W 500nm lightsource will radiate about > 2.5 * 10^20 photons per second. The Sun is about a > 3.94 * 10^26 W light bulb, and in order to correctly calculate > the photons emanating therefrom I'd have to study blackbody > radiation theory. Let's just say: it's a lot. Stefans law will help you. sigma=5.67051e-8 watt/(m^2 K^4) P=sigma A T^4 A is area in meters squared, T is absolute temp. All you need is the suns temperature and area. >>> They possess fields......but what is a field? >> >> Maxwell's equations answer that question. > > Actually, they don't -- but they do yield measurable, verifiable > results, which for a physicist is good enough. :-) That is the best answer I have as to what a field is. ..... >>>>an isolated object can not detect a force acting upon it. >>> >>> Yes it can. >>> A spring acelerometer will do it. >> >> An accelerometer is at least three objects. A mass, a spring and the >> case that holds the mass and spring. >> >>> Objects in free fall don't have a force acting on them according to >>> GR. >> >> You are wrong. >> >> Objects in free fall can not tell that they have a force acting upon >> them without looking outside. > > There's a few quirks in there, though. For sure. > Tidal forces in particular > affect both Earth and very small elastic spheres (one contemplates > measuring water droplets) on such as the Space Shuttle or the ISS. And the surface of the earth is not truely inertial either, due to the various radial motions of the systems we are part of. >>>>> 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. >>>> >>>>You misunderstand SR and free fall. >>>> >>>>As long as everything within a frame of reference is in a state of >>>>constant velocity then an observer within that frame can not >>>>distinguish his condition from free fall. >>> >>> I can give an example where that doesn't apply. >>> >>> Drop an object from a high tower. >> >> It is accelerating wrt your Frame of Reference. >> >>> As it passes you, you jump off your >>> own lower tower. >> >> You take your frame of reference with you. The object continues to >> accelerate wrt your FoR. You accelerate wrt the tower's FoR (and the >> ground, which shares the towers FoR). >> >>> Both you and the object are now in the same state of free fall >> >> Not the same state. >> >> You are each in free fall. You each experience the same force of >> gravity and accelerate at the same rate. But you do not have the same >> velocity. It is moving at a constant velocity wrt you. >> >>> ..... but >>> it is moving relative to you. >> >> yes, at a constant velocity. >> >>> GR cannot explain this problem. >> >> You are quite wrong about that. I just explained it. You don't >> need GR. You don't need SR. You just need simple >> physics/mechanics. > > The error in this assumption is on the order of 5 * 10^-14; the > maximum contemplative velocity is that reached after traveling > 500 m or so (taking approximately 10 seconds). This velocity > is 100 m/s = 3.33 * 10^-7 c. I think we can live with that, for now. > (The height of the Petronas towers is about 450 m. There is > a taller structure in Toronto of 550 m or so, but it > does not have habitation/office space.) > >> If you are confused >> by this, it is no wonder that you are having problems with SR and GR. >> >> v(t)=v_0+a.t >> >> Your velocity at any time (until object hits earth) is going to be less >> than the velocity of object. >> >> Assume the object has been dropping for 5 seconds when it reaches you. >> It is traveling at 49 m/s. > > This necessitates a travel distance of approximately 125 m. > >> >> You jump. In 5 seconds, you are traveling 49 m/s wrt your tower/ground, >> the object is traveling 98 m/s wrt t/g , 49 m/s wrt you. > > The object now has traveled 500m. You have traveled 125m. > >> >> In 5 more seconds, it will be traveling 147.1 m/s wrt the ground, you >> will be traveing 98 m/w wrt grount, it will be traveling 49 ms wrt you. > > The object now has traveled 1,125 m. You have traveled 500m. Must have been a tall tower. I hope I remembered to wear my suspenders. >> You are now in the same inertial frame that it is because your velocity >> wrt it is constant. But you are not moving at the same velocity that it >> is moving. > > I'm not sure about that. The object is moving relative to you; > it therefore is not in the same frame. I think that if its velocity is constant wrt me, we are in the same inertial frame according to GR. ..... >>>>>>2. The velocity of light has the same value in all inertial systems. >>>>>>[unquote] >>>>> >>>>> That's a postulate, not a law. >>>> >>>>It was stated as a postulate. You just repeated what was said. >>> >>> Postulates are NOT truths. Please don't refer to them as though they >>> are. >> >> Postulates are assumed to be truths. Predictions are made based upon >> them. If the predictions prove to be correct, the postulates stand >> until they are falsified. The postulates of SR stand. > For now, at least. We'll see come sometime in August or September, > and even then Uncle Al's results will probably be "upwardly > compatible" with current SR/GTR theory, in much the same fashion > as SR/GTR theory is "upwardly compatible" with Newtonian theory, > when v << c. It will be interesting. >>>>>>>>> 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. >>> >>> Sorry, actually it will. >> >> Don't bet your life on it. >> >> If you are in free fall in orbit around the earth, you are not in an >> interial state wrt the earth. You are constantly accelerating. Your >> accelerometer will not show the acceleration, however. In an orbit, you >> can define your FoR as the ship, for a while. > Admittedly, this is one bit in GR that confuses me. Of course I > can trot out the old rubber-sheet or funnel metaphor (the Earth > is in the neck of the funnel) and roll a marble; the marble > exerts a force on the rubber (and the rubber dimples in response) > or on the plastic, but is otherwise moving in what one might call > a "rubberdesic". Well, I think that the path that light takes is DEFINED as a straight line. > > It's certainly not a straight line, to be sure -- but it's a line > of constant energy. (Not kinetic energy, to be sure -- elliptical > orbits are common -- but total energy.) > > Even light has to move in a constant-energy geodesic/heliodesic/etc. No argument from me. ..... >>> GR changes the spatial scales so that light speed remains constant ihn >>> a gravity well. >>> I also defines force as F=ma....whereas in fact that equation is only >>> physically valid as: a=F/m. >> >> F=ma is valid in more cases than a=F/m. >> >> a=F/m is meaningless when m=0. > > Hmm...an interesting contemplation: what is the force of a lightbeam? I can't say from the above. All we can say is that acceleration of a light beam by any force is meaningless as long as photons have zero mass. Of course, they don't have zero mass as long as they have energy. > There has to be one, as quanta have momentum; radiating enough quanta > will produce a force or torque -- especially if the item is very light. > > Since p = mv for massive objects and E/c for light quanta, the best > I can do here is F = ma = pa/c = Ea/(c^2), since v = c. However, > this implicitly requires the rather ugly pseudomass value m = E/c^2. Ugly? ..... >>>>Again, you confuse SR and GR. >>> >>> It would not be hard to misunderstand or confuse two theories that >>> epitomies the very meaning of the words 'confusion' and >>> 'misunderstanding'. >> >> If you intend to attack the weaknesses of a theory, attack the right >> theory. > > I get the feeling he doesn't like either one. :-) SR and GR, you mean? :) ..... >>> It simply reiterated the aether principle mathematically.... that >>> light is a wavelike disturbance in a medium. >> >> It did NOT reiterate the aether principle. >> >> It resolve the conflict between the aether principle and the fact that >> observations indicated no significant motion wrt any hypothetical >> aether. > > Any hypothetical *rigid* aether. BaT cannot be disproved by MMX > with a stationary lightsource. (However, it should be disprovable > by using a moving lightsource, such as a star.) > I have proposed an experiment with a moving light source. An Led or laser diode mounted at the center of a rotating disk with an optical fiber launching light tangential to the edge of the disk. Two photo detectors at different distances from the rotating source. Comparision of time of flight of photons between the two detectors as the light source moves at different speeds. With a very good scope SR could be invalidated IF BaT were correct. ..... >> >> I'll take responsibility for how I look. >> I don't mind finding out that I am wrong. >> I learn that way. > > A true scientist's credo, that. Salut. :-) I try. >>> By 1905, many experiments suggested that TWLS appeared to be constant >>> when all parts of the experiment were mutually at rest. That's all. >> >> Experments since then continue to confirm the predictions of SR. The >> Ives- Stilwell Experiment gives results that are inconsitent with >> classical theory, inconsistent with BaT, but are consistent with SR. > > That's a new one on me, though fairly straightforward. A quick > Google later coughed up > > http://www.mpi-hd.mpg.de/ato/rel/ > > Nice experiment. :-) Is it valid, according to H. Wilson? > Sure looks valid to me. > >> >>> Einstein merely redefined clock synching so that OWLS always >>> =TWLS.....EVEN IF AN AETHER EXISTED!!! >> >> You act like this is against some rule. You sound like you think >> Einstein 'cheated' when he did this. > > He did. He suckered all of the megagazillions of photons when > he first wrote his paper, and they've been loyally following > him ever since. :-) After all, photons want to be "in" -- mostly > in one's eyeball. :) ..... >>> If you again consider my example above regarding two objects falling >>> from different heights. >>> They are both inertial. ...yet the distance between them is >>> increasing.. What is going on? >> >> They are each interial in their own framwork. They are not inertial wrt >> each other. >> >> They don't share the same frame work unless they started their fall at >> the same time in the same uniform g field. > > The variance of g from the top of a 500m tower to its base would > be on the order of about .1%, if I'm not mistaken. I won't argue with that. ..... >> I wish you the best of luck. > > Does this mean he's going to actually fund his triple-rocket > experiment? ;-) Not I. -- 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 |