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 9 Apr 2005 04:00 "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:1113031084.509191.110540 @z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com: > > IMHO a charge in the emitter jiggles. perhaps it giggles. > That makes lots of other charges in the universe jiggle, laughter is contagious > Somebody names one of those many charges "detector" > and watches it jiggle. That can be fun. > All the rest is imaginary and probably half of the above too. > But only one 'detector' can jiggle for each jiggle of the emitter. -- 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: Sue... on 9 Apr 2005 05:56 << But only one 'detector' can jiggle for each jiggle of the emitter. >> You should write that up as a formalism. Perhaps you can avert the ultra-violet catastrophe and save all of humanity. ;-) << The ultraviolet catastrophe results from the equipartition theorem of classical statistical mechanics>> http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/u/ul/ultraviolet_catastrophe.htm Sue..
From: Sue... on 9 Apr 2005 06:28 bz: << But only one 'detector' can jiggle for each jiggle of the emitter. >> There are people in Las Vegas that believe a mathmatical principle prevents a slot machine from showing all lemons three times in a row.... ....They are not the same people that own the hotels and casinos. ;-) Sue...
From: bz on 9 Apr 2005 07:37 "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:1113040574.756730.248010(a)l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com: > > << But only one 'detector' can jiggle for each jiggle of the emitter. >>> > > You should write that up as a formalism. > Perhaps you can avert the ultra-violet catastrophe > and save all of humanity. ;-) > I can't prevent it. It already happened. We just imagine that it hasn't happened yet. -- 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: PD on 9 Apr 2005 08:27
Henri Wilson wrote: > On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 04:00:03 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine > <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote: > > >In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson) > ><H@> > > wrote > > >>>> Empirical fact of life, Jim. > >>>> > >>> > >>>Confirmable, as well. The SR and the BaT predict different results > >>>for such things as spectroscopic binaries, even if one can't > >>>measure the speed directly. > >> > >> You are very confused now Ghost. Getting desperate I would say. > > > >Am I? > > > >Here's a hint for you. Assume two stars traveling around a common > >center at 30 km/s = 10^-4 c, although we can't tell the speed directly. > >What would be the wavelengths observed as these stars orbit each other, > >assuming a spectral line initially at 500 nm [*] and an approximate > >distance of 10 lightyears? > > > >BaT: > > > >The star is spewing out particles at lightspeed, relative to itself. > >These particles are of course 500 nm apart. However, since the > >star is moving toward us, the particles in realspace will be a > >tad longer apart -- namely, 500.05 nm apart. The other star > >moving away from us will generate light of wavelength 499.95 nm, > >as measured by us. The delta is 120.0000012 GHz between the two signals. > > Question, Ghost: > What is this 'realspace'? > Is it another name for the aether? > > You are definitely very confused Ghost. > The wavelength is the same no matter how you look at it. > > Proof: let the star fire a identical rods between each particle....... > > S_._._._._._._._._._._._. > > You can see that the distance between particles is constant. > [snip] This is precisely the problem. You imagine that a wavelength is emitted from the source, fully formed, its length predestined. This is not the case. Look at it this way: the source emits "blips" every so often. The blips represent wavefronts (or whatever) that travel at a fixed speed *relative to the observer* away from the source. But if the source is moving away from the direction of transmission, the distance between the blips/fronts (or whatever) will be larger than if the source were stationary relative to the observer. Likewise, if the source is moving along the direction of transmission, the distance between the blips/fronts (or whatever) will be smaller. PD |