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: Sue... on 29 Jun 2005 06:24 bz wrote: > H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in > news:skr3c11fud172t18igefmqqn15vhrpf7di(a)4ax.com: > > > On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 07:54:43 +0000 (UTC), bz > > <bz+nanae(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > > > >>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in > >>news:vk21c15crve4klnsn677mgpsmprusg56rl(a)4ax.com: > >> > > > >>> Bob, just run my movingframe program again. > >>> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/movingframe.exe > >>> > >>> What happens in the rest frame is plotted in the other. > >>> > >>> The resulting configuration has nought to do with observers or what > >>> they see.. > >> > >>On the contrary. You are showing what an all-seeing being would see if > >>your model were valid. > > > > Bob, you are seriously confused here. > > I don't think so. > > > Why do you think Einstein and Lorentz et al thought the vertical beam > > moves diagonally in a moving frame? > > Because the beam would strike targets that lie along a diagonal path. > > > It doesn't require an observer to ubderstand that each element does > > indeed follow a diagonal path when PLOTTED in the moving frame. > > Without an observer, there is no one to do the plotting. Have you never heard of "spoonbending"? The object or entity responds to your gaze. As I am not doing so well in my class exercises in spoonbending, I'll fall back on an old standby and suggest you wave at yourself in a mirror, noting how points on the mirror's surface correspond to points on the moving image. If you can conceive some mode of propagation other than http://www.physics.yorku.ca/undergrad_programme/highsch/Feynm4.html which completely explains the phenomena, then it would make a very interesting post. ;-) Sue... > > Each element follows a diagonal path when plotted in the moving frame. > > If all the photons were allowed to reach the upper edge > Each element would strike a different target on that edge in the moving > frame. > > From the viewpoint of the moving frame, > the target which is stationary in the stationary frame > (and intercepts all the photons), > moves at the exact right speed to interecept all the photon. > > -- > 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: bz on 29 Jun 2005 07:30 "Arthur Dent" <jp006t2227(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in news:1120018470.738213.225190(a)z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com: > > > bz wrote: >> "Arthur Dent" <jp006t2227(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in >> news:1119811858.827607.249480(a)o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com: > >> > Here's ONE of his equations that needs correction. >> > ý[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v)) >> > >> > Do you see that c-v and c+v? They are the vector addition of >> > velocities. >> >> No. They are terms used in the calculation TIME. >> x'/(c-v) is the time for the beam to travel from A to B >> x'/(c+v) is the time for the return trip > > Ok, I'm done. You think the time x'/(c-v) is equal to the time x'/(c+v) > and you talk about sanity checking. I can't argue with faith, I'm > restricted > to mathematics and logic. > Have a nice day. If you are talking about logic and math, at that point in his paper he is adding times. At that point, he is NOT saying the times are equal. He did pose it as a proposition earlier, he does use it later, but at that point he is just calculating and then adding times. It is illogical to say he is adding velocity vectors at that point. If we can agree on that point, we can go on. If not, so long and thanks for the fish. -- 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: bz on 29 Jun 2005 12:39 "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:1120040690.622790.303680 @g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: >> Without an observer, there is no one to do the plotting. > > Have you never heard of "spoonbending"? > The object or entity responds to your gaze. I have heard of going on a bender. Which reminds me of the Randi challenge. > As I am not doing so well in my class exercises > in spoonbending I guess you are not ready to claim the Randi prize, then. > , I'll fall back on an old standby > and suggest you wave at yourself in a mirror, noting > how points on the mirror's surface correspond to points > on the moving image. If you can conceive some mode of > propagation other than > http://www.physics.yorku.ca/undergrad_programme/highsch/Feynm4.html > which completely explains the phenomena, then > it would make a very interesting post. ;-) I can't quite stomach Feynman's multi path photons. When ever I hear multi-path radio signals, they undergo selective faiding and sometime longgggggg delaaayyyyyyyyyyyedddd echhhhhhhhhhhos. Somehow that doesn't integrate well with the photons wave function. -- 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 29 Jun 2005 18:53 On 28 Jun 2005 18:29:10 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On 27 Jun 2005 18:39:03 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> >> >Henri Wilson wrote: >> > >> >> RT Aur radial velocity curve is precisely that of a star >> >> in elliptical orbit with ecc ~0.25 and perihelion furthest >> >> from observer. Its light curve can be produced easily with >> >> my BaT program. >> >> >> >> >-Now- do you understand? >> > >> >No explanation for period noise = BaT failed. >> >> define this 'noise' please. > >Although the -mean- period of a Cepheid tends to be stable, >individual peak-to-peak timing varies by amounts that may be >up to a large fraction of an hour. The earliest observations >of period noise date back more than a century ago. Since then, >increasingly precise instrumentation has confirmed the effect. Rubbish. Most cepheids have such constant periods tat you can adjust your clock with one. > >> >No explanation for Doppler broadening = BaT failed. >> >> BaT provides a perfect explanation. Jerry failed. > >Doppler broadening is associated with photospheric >turbulence as the Cepheid goes through its cycle, >bubbling up and then deflating. >http://www.obs-hp.fr/www/preprints/pp107/pp107.pdf so what? they put it down to a hypothetical turbulence. that kind of turbulence would broaden lines just as well according to the BaT. >> >False prediction of orbital Doppler shifts = BaT failed. >> >> That statement is wrong....Jerry failed. > >Detection of stellar radial velocities due to orbital >movements down to several meters per second is well within >the capabilities of current instrumentation. The orbital >movements predicted by BaT are not observed. Who are you trying to kid? the radial velocity curve derived using doppler is exactly as the BaT predicts for a star in low-medium eccentricity orbit. > >> >Failure to explain Cepheid stars observable in Magenellic >> > Clouds (far beyond critical distance) = BaT failed. >> >> Jerry doesn't even understand the connection bertween critical distance and >> other orbit parameters. ....Jerry failed. > >Henri, YOU explained the disappearance of variability >in RU Cam as being due to the star having moved beyond >the "critical distance." My understanding of the >origin of "critical distance" is that you predict >that overlapping c+v and c-v light will add up >destructively. You have a better explanation for >this never observed phenomenon, Henri? The critical distance is that at which the first brightness peak is maximized. It is where the first multiple image will appear, assuming no extraneous factors. Obserevd Cepheids are nowhere near the critical distance but still exhibit a regular brightness variation due to 'bunching' of their emitted c+v light. When I said they move away from the critical distance, I meant they move closer to zero. RU Cam S------C-------S1___________________D S and S1 is the limit position of the the binary pair called RU Cam as it orbits slowly around C. D is the critical distance where maximum brightness fluctuations should occur. When RU Cam is at S1, significant variation is seen at D. When it is at S, litlle or no variation is detected. >> >Failure to explain secular variations in Cepheid >> > periods = BaT failed. >> >> Cepheid periods are known to be very constant ...as predicted by the BaT. >> Variation, when they occur are fuly explained by the BaT.....Jery failed. > >Precise measurements of Cepheids reveal secular variations >in their mean periods, typical on the order of several seconds >per year. These are FACTS, Henri. That's just as I would expect for a binary pair in large orbit. Galactic rotation would be enough to cause it. > >> >Failure to explain overtone frequencies = BaT failed. >> >etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.... >> >> Jerry failed...etc...etc....etc.... > >Jerry Jerry failed miserably. 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 29 Jun 2005 19:10
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 09:56:03 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:skr3c11fud172t18igefmqqn15vhrpf7di(a)4ax.com: > >> On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 07:54:43 +0000 (UTC), bz >> <bz+nanae(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >> >>>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>>news:vk21c15crve4klnsn677mgpsmprusg56rl(a)4ax.com: >>> >> >>>> Bob, just run my movingframe program again. >>>> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/movingframe.exe >>>> >>>> What happens in the rest frame is plotted in the other. >>>> >>>> The resulting configuration has nought to do with observers or what >>>> they see.. >>> >>>On the contrary. You are showing what an all-seeing being would see if >>>your model were valid. >> >> Bob, you are seriously confused here. > >I don't think so. > >> Why do you think Einstein and Lorentz et al thought the vertical beam >> moves diagonally in a moving frame? > >Because the beam would strike targets that lie along a diagonal path. > >> It doesn't require an observer to ubderstand that each element does >> indeed follow a diagonal path when PLOTTED in the moving frame. > >Without an observer, there is no one to do the plotting. Use a computer. > >Each element follows a diagonal path when plotted in the moving frame. that is correct. .........and each element remains vertically above the following one. > >If all the photons were allowed to reach the upper edge >Each element would strike a different target on that edge in the moving >frame. that is correct. That occurs because the elements are emitted in sequence and each one follows a DIFFERENT diagonal path. No matter how fast the frame moves, the elements take the same time to reach the top. Their speed is sqrt(c^2+v^2). They are infinitesimal points defining a line. They are not light or anything else. > >From the viewpoint of the moving frame, >the target which is stationary in the stationary frame >(and intercepts all the photons), >moves at the exact right speed to interecept all the photon. yes. The beam remains vertical - just like a light pole moving sideways - and the target moves at the same speed. Please have another peek at my movingframe.exe It illustrates the effect quite effectively. 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. |