Speed of Light: A universal Constant?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Joan-Claude van Dirk Helps to Trivialize Special Relativity
Next: GOD=G_uv Measure your IQ in 30 seconds
From: Henri Wilson on 22 May 2005 20:00 On Sun, 22 May 2005 17:21:14 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:rhev81d329c46jmn0iri21b0e7da4l4e8p(a)4ax.com: > >> 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. If you iabout it, there is no 'single aether frame' needed in aether theory either. Any observer's frame can represent the 'absolute ' one ...and the maths will still work. > >> 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. Not for hte maths. But one IS required to explain why light from differently moving sources should ever travel at the same speed through space. > >> 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. The maths part doesn't. the physics does. > >>>> 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 cannot get it into your head that a one way TOFLS experiment involves two clocks. They can only be synchronized by sendoing a light signal in the reverse direction....whiuch makes such an experiment a TWLS one. >>>> 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? No. But I am at least able to think freely about it without having to conform to any established doctrine. >>> >>>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. We I invite you to perform an experiment in which a pulse of light is sent towards Andromeda. I am 100% certain that its speed will not be determined as biong c wrt every object in the galaxy, when measured in the source frame. Why do SRians close their eyes to this obvious fact? >> >> 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?' This is true. We have not evolved sensors for such things. Some other animals apparently have, eg, in the case of migrating birds using the Earth's magnetic field. Others detect UV and IR light and sounds well beyond the human range. In a way, it could be argued that sensation like 'smell' are just as much a dimension as is the concept of a spatial axis. Unquestionably, there is a great deal of independent information reaching our biological sensor but the 'form' given to each type is a psychological construction. That applies to space, time, smell, sound and colour, etc. This is a big subject that most people cannot even grasp at all. > >>>> 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 I think you must be related to Paul Andersen. That's the kind of statement he would make. > >> Let's speculate! What might make them different from 'zero space'? > >They have frequency, wavelength, energy, polarization, angular momentum, >velocity. Tell me how 'zero space' can possess any of these properties. > >> They possess fields......but what is a field? > >Maxwell's equations answer that question. HoHohohohahaha! Maxwell's equations tell us that E and B 'fields' can self propagate through a medium at c. They don't tell us what a field IS! > >>>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. Size exists without measurement. > >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. How about length and effective cross section? > >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. the is nothing wrong with exp\ressing photon 'size' in terms of our standard units. >>>>> >>>>>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. It doesn't require any 'case'. ...but it DOES require a connection to an object such as a spaceship. > >> Objects in free fall don't have a force acting on them according to GR. > >You are wrong. Ask any DHR. > >Objects in free fall can not tell that they have a force acting upon them >without looking outside. What if there is nothing outside? >>>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). Not according to GR. > >> Both you and the object are now in the same state of free fall > >Not the same state. How can one 'free fall' differ from another at the same location? > >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. Yes OK but... According to GR, there is no 'force of gravity'. I think you should start arguing with relativists, not someone like me. > >> ..... 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. Yes you are right. I appreciate that point but it is not really what I was trying to emphasize. > >Neither of you is in an inertial frame wrt the earth. I think GR says they both are. How can a frame be both inertial and non-inertial? It should not depend on the observer, surely. Does the Earth constitute an inertial frame? If a frame is inertial, would it not be inertial wrt all other inertial frames? ********** Incidentally, I have a 'theory' that says if a massive object is forced to accelerate faster than the local g, it will produce an anti-gravity effect and reduce that local g. It works with charge, whynot gravity. What do you think? ******** >> >> 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. That is correct. In the case of SR, no postulate has been directly verified. >>>>>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. It is inertial when free falling in orbit. > >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. This is where this whole approach to gravitational force becomes farcical. It is plainly obvious that a massive object such as the Earth is not being accelerated towards you at g by your very meagre gravitational potential. You are the one accelerating. Yet your accelerator reads zero and GR says you are inertial. > >>>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. No, but if it reads zero, it tells you you are inertial. > >>>>>>>> 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. The general opinion is that SR is a limited case of GR.....GR without gravity. > >> 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. that's a new one :) > >a=F/m is meaningless when m=0. :) >>>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. SR is GR without gravity. > >>>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. SR is GR without gravity. > >>>>>>>[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. When the MMX showed no evidence of an aether, Einstein simply postulated what LET said...ie, that OWLS is always constant. > >> It simply reiterated the aether principle mathematically.... that light >> is a wavelike disturbance in a medium. > >It did NOT reiterate the aether principle. it did. > >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] yes, but if you look closely at what Einstein did, you will find it amounts to exactly the same thing as aether theory. That is why the equations and predictions are also exactly the same. >> 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. experimentor bias... > >> 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. > >Clue: it isn't against the rules. He knew that in his lifetime, nobody could possibly measure or compare OWLS. > >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. Both are wrong anyway..so what does it matter. >>> >>>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. the 'GR redshift' is exactly that predicted by the BaT, ie that photons accelerate just like ordinary matter. This is quite understandable. The BaT changes light velocity, GR changes the size of a spatial unit. >>> >>>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. You said before that they were. > >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. No you are not. You are continually following the standard line. >>>> 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. Yes it does. > >> It cannot, without resorting to LET. > >You see it as LET. That does not make it so. Only an absolute property of the space between any two points could cause the light speed between those points to be constant and independent of observer speed. That is aether theory. A postulate wont do it. >>>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. How come none of these great minds has been good enough to realise that a vertical light beam remains vertical in all frames. >Doesn't it amaze you that no one has succeeded in invalidating it variable star data invalidates it..... but nobody has the courage to say so. They would lose his job if they did. 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: Henri Wilson on 22 May 2005 20:25 On Sun, 22 May 2005 20:00:03 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote: >In sci.physics, bz ><bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> > wrote >> 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. Why doesn't NASA use egg timers, Ghost? >> 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. > >:-) that's a good example of SRian logic Ghost. >> 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. so far....but it hasn't really been tested directly. > >> >> 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? :-) > >>> 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 >> '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. It shows that gamma is the geometric mean between 1/(c+v) and 1/(c-v). So what? >> >>> 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. Assume constant g for this experiment Ghost. >>>> >>>>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. >> 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 Chinese are going to do it. They read all my messages. 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: The Ghost In The Machine on 22 May 2005 21:00 In sci.physics, bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote on Sun, 22 May 2005 23:10:32 +0000 (UTC) <Xns965EB8EE42F8EWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139>: > 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: [mucho snippage] >>>> 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? Yes, because light really has no rest mass. > > .... >>>>>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? :) Yes. > > .... >>>> 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. > It would not be all that difficult. Particle acceleration experiments would yield different results, and certain stellar observations would yield different results. Also, electron-photon interactions would behave differently. > > .... >>> >>> 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'd have to look. I can never remember whether it's GM/d or GM/d^2 for the energy potential. I'm inclined to think the latter (since F = GmM/d^2) but would have to work it out. > > .... >>> I wish you the best of luck. >> >> Does this mean he's going to actually fund his triple-rocket >> experiment? ;-) > > Not I. > Me neither, directly. He could petition NASA, I suppose, and get taxpayer funding. I doubt they'd accept. -- #191, ewill3(a)earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless.
From: The Ghost In The Machine on 22 May 2005 22:00 In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson) <H@> wrote on Mon, 23 May 2005 00:25:26 GMT <qb7291hb481am40lpcndl5vnk5th7i1176(a)4ax.com>: > On Sun, 22 May 2005 20:00:03 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine > <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote: > >>In sci.physics, bz >><bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> >> wrote > >>> 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. > > Why doesn't NASA use egg timers, Ghost? Erm...because most egg timers have a little problem of requiring gravity, perhaps? I don't do three minute boiled eggs, so can't say. > >>> 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. >> >>:-) > > that's a good example of SRian logic Ghost. > > >>> 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. > > so far....but it hasn't really been tested directly. And BaT has? [snip for brevity] >>>> 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. > > Assume constant g for this experiment Ghost. > I merely point out the presumed error. I'm not entirely sure I'm correct here -- it could be .1% or .0001%, depending on whether one assumes a g variance of 1/d or 1/d^2. I'd have to work it out. > >>>>> >>>>>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. > >>> 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 Chinese are going to do it. > They read all my messages. > And which government ministry would that be, out of curiosity? [.sigsnip] -- #191, ewill3(a)earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless.
From: bz on 22 May 2005 22:35
H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:5k12915fcf7ocnjsrv6l6m1q5vpbrq64j9(a)4ax.com: >>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 cannot get it into your head that a one way TOFLS experiment > involves two clocks. They can only be synchronized by sendoing a light > signal in the reverse direction....whiuch makes such an experiment a > TWLS one. > > I don't care if it is a TWLS experiment. I am not concerned with motion or not motion of the aether. I am concerned with whether or not photons from my captive moving source travel at c or c'=c+/-v. For that determination, I don't need to measure the speed of light absolutely, I just need to compare it with speed measured as the source speed is changed. ..... >>Science doesn't try to hid these things, it puts them out in the open so >>that others can run better experiments. > > I invite you to perform an experiment in which a pulse of light is > sent towards Andromeda. I am 100% certain that its speed will not be > determined as being c wrt every object in the galaxy, when measured in > the source frame. > > Why do SRians close their eyes to this obvious fact? > We have discussed this before. We disagree on the results. I don't know why because you have accepted that each object in Andromeda will see a different doppler shift on the incoming photons. ..... >>>>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. > > Size exists without measurement. Let me see you determine the size of something without measuring it in some way. ..... >>There is NO other useful meaning of the word 'size' as applied to photons. > > How about length and effective cross section? Tell me hou you want to measure those and we will add them to the properties of a photon. Will that make you happy? ..... >>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. > > the is nothing wrong with expressing photon 'size' in terms of our > standard units. Of course not. I never said there was. I said the term 'size' is meaningless wrt photons unless you specify how you wish to measure size. ..... >>>>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. > > It doesn't require any 'case'. ...but it DOES require a connection to an > object such as a spaceship. In that case, the spaceship is the case. >>> Objects in free fall don't have a force acting on them according to >>> GR. >> >>You are wrong. > > Ask any DHR. What is a DHR? >> >>Objects in free fall can not tell that they have a force acting upon them >>without looking outside. > > What if there is nothing outside? Then there is no way to tell if they have a force acting uniformly upon them. ..... >>> 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). > > Not according to GR. In what way? >>> Both you and the object are now in the same state of free fall >> >>Not the same state. > > How can one 'free fall' differ from another at the same location? They are falling at different velocities. >>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. > Yes OK but... > According to GR, there is no 'force of gravity'. > I think you should start arguing with relativists, not someone like me. GR does not say there is NO force of gravity, but that gravity can be looked upon as a curature of space. Those are quite different things. ..... >>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. > > Yes you are right. I appreciate that point but it is not really what I > was trying to emphasize. I am afraid I can not speak to what you were trying to emphasize, only to what you said. >>Neither of you is in an inertial frame wrt the earth. > I think GR says they both are. How can a frame be both inertial and > non-inertial? It should not depend on the observer, surely. Things in the same inertial frame have a fixed velocity wrt each other. > Does the Earth constitute an inertial frame? It does wrt anything that is moving at a constant velocity wrt the earth. > If a frame is inertial, would it not be inertial wrt all other inertial > frames? Of course not. Being in the same inertial frame is like being on the same train. Are all trains the same? > ********** > Incidentally, I have a 'theory' that says if a massive object is forced > to accelerate faster than the local g, it will produce an anti-gravity > effect and reduce that local g. How 'massive' must the object be? > It works with charge, why not gravity. There are positive and negative charges. There are no negative gravities. > What do you think? Show me the math. Then show me an experiment that you propose to use to test it. ******* I think you are pulling my leg. >>> >>> 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. > > That is correct. In the case of SR, no postulate has been directly > verified. No prediction of SR has been shown to be false. SR stands until its predictions are falsified. >>>>>>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 >>inertial 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. > > It is inertial when free falling in orbit. inertial wrt what? What are the constituents of your inertial system? They are everything that is moving with a constant velocity wrt you. The contents of the ship constitute an inertial system. The ship is NOT in the earths inertial system however. >>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. > > This is where this whole approach to gravitational force becomes > farcical. It is your understanding that is faulty. > It is plainly obvious that a massive object such as the Earth is not > being accelerated towards you at g by your very meagre gravitational > potential. > > You are the one accelerating. > > Yet your accelerator reads zero and GR says you are inertial. If you think that a zero reading means you are inertial then you don't understand what the accelerometer does. It only means that the accelerometer and its immediate surrounds constitute an inertial system. It says nothing about other objectes in the immediate area or the rest of the universe. ..... >>The accelerometer can't tell you why it is measuring 1 g. > > No, but if it reads zero, it tells you you are inertial. An inertial system is those objects that are moving at a constant velocity wrt each other. It says nothing about any other objects. ..... >>>>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. > > The general opinion is that SR is a limited case of GR.....GR without > gravity. Not without gravity, but without taking into account the GR predicted distortion of space caused by mass. ..... >>You act like this is against some rule. You sound like you think >>Einstein 'cheated' when he did this. > > He did. > >> >>Clue: it isn't against the rules. > > He knew that in his lifetime, nobody could possibly measure or compare > OWLS. You may be luckier. Your claims about BaT may be tested in your lifetime. ..... >>> 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. > > You said before that they were. I was right the first time. I started answering your article from the end, working my way back to the beginning. I didn't correct this part later. >>They don't share the same frame work unless they started their fall at >>the same time in the same uniform g field. I should have said 'they don't share the same frame work unless they have a constant velocity wrt each other.' Two objects following different paths toward the center of the earth would, not have an exactly constant velocity. So, technically they are not really inertial wrt each other, but for all practical purposes, they DO share an inertial FoR. ..... >>I do not worship at the SRian or the BaTer altar. I am examining both >>with an open mind. > > No you are not. You are continually following the standard line. If I took the BaT side, then there would be nothing to discuss with you. ..... >>Science does not need to explain WHY the velocity of c is constant as >>measured by all observers. > > Yes it does. Science does not answer why questions. Religion answers why questions. Those that insist on answers to why questions are worshipers. >>> It cannot, without resorting to LET. >> >>You see it as LET. That does not make it so. > > Only an absolute property of the space between any two points could > cause the light speed between those points to be constant and > independent of observer speed. That is your theory. > That is aether theory. > A postulate wont do it. Postulates don't do anything. Theories don't do anything. >>>>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. > > How come none of these great minds has been good enough to realise that > a vertical light beam remains vertical in all frames. Perhaps because it doesn't. >>Doesn't it amaze you that no one has succeeded in invalidating it > > variable star data invalidates it So far, I have not been convinced that the data really invalidates it. > ..... but nobody has the courage to say > so. They would lose his job if they did. If the data were incontrovertable then the vision of a possible Nobel prize would overcome the fear of losing a job. -- 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 |