From: Henry Wilson, DSc on
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 01:29:49 +1000, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote:

>"Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:20090911050506.12a97987.jethomas5(a)gmail.com...
>> "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote:
>>> "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote
>>
>>> > I thought frequency * wavelength had to equal velocity? No, for
>>> > emission theory it doesn't have to. Source and target travel at the
>>> > same speed so there's no doppler effect and no redshift. Wavelength
>>> > stays the same. Frequency stays the same. Velocity varies with the
>>> > speed of target and source.
>>> >
>>> > So now my picture is improved.
>>>
>>> Hope I've helped
>>
>> Yes, thank you!
>
>BTW: I might digress into some philosophy / metaphysics for a moment that
>you may find it interesting. I'm just going to see where the thoughts take
>me, so welcome along for the ride. Don't expect this to be in any way
>formal, nor is it physics, nor is it something that I think is definitely
>the case etc etc .. just some thoughts.
>
>In order to have a universe we need three things (among others) .. space,
>time, and change/causality. Without space, the universe is a single point
>and nothing happens. Without time, nothing can change and the universe is
>instantly over. Without change / causality nothing happens and the universe
>is frozen.
>
>We also need a finite speed of causality/change. If cause and effect were
>instant, then the whole of the universe would be over in zero timem as all
>chains of cause and effect would happen in an instant. If cause and effect
>do not propagate instantly (ie with infinite speed), then there must be a
>finite speed at which they do propagate. This gives us that the temporal
>difference between cause and effect relates to spatial distance between
>cause an effect. Time and space let us have a causes and effects that are
>not instant (and vice versa).
>
>The structure of the universe, then, needs to be such that there is a finite
>speed of causality / change.
>
>If cause and effect could be instant, then (say) if there was a change in
>the position of a charge, the field change would have instant effect
>throughout the universe. A bit like if you have a perfectly rigid rod
>(there is no such thing, but we can imagine one), where if you move one end
>of the rod, the whole rod moves the same instantly. But when you move
>something non-rigid, it takes time for the change to propagate. Back to our
>moving charge, the change in the field would have to propagate at that
>finite speed of causality I mentioned before, and so you would end up with a
>wave of field changes. That is (roughly) what light is, the wave of change
>moving through space and time with the speed of causality. Light only
>exists *because* there is a finite speed of change. And it must travel at
>the speed.
>
>That's what makes the second postulate of SR, the definite speed of light,
>valid. The very structure of reality, with a finite speed of causality
>(that must exist so that reality doesn't just collapse into a single point)
>gives us light that must travel with a speed that is always the same.

That idea has been put forward before. But speed is relative. Your concept
requires an absolute aether.

>Anyway .. that's just my little bit of philosophy and metaphysics. I don't
>usually delve into it, but it might give you something to ponder :):)
>


Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on
On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 13:41:35 +1000, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote:

>"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message
>news:fnfja5123khlm8mcfurerb9ftabpkn4tij(a)4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 11:55:46 +1000, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com>
>> wrote:

>>>
>>>Yeup. Its all relative. Every inertial observer measures light as
>>>travelling at c relative to him, and so if other objects are moving
>>>relative
>>>to him, obviously their separation/closing speed relative to the light
>>>will
>>>NOT be c.
>>
>> Unfortunately that is a bit of SciFi. Nobody has ever measured OWLS from a
>> moving source.
>
>Every experiment has shown the speed of light is c (when not slowed by some
>medium).

'Every experiment' has been a TW experiment using a source at rest wrt the
detector.


>>>> Einstein stole that idea
>>>> directly from LET.
>>>
>>>He 'stole' it from experimental evidence that implied that light speed was
>>>a
>>>constant.
>>
>>
>> hahahahhhahhaha! What experimental evidence Dopey? There is NONE!
>
>There was years of evidence to support light speed being a constant,
>including MMX.
>
>One minute you claim he stole the idea from others, and now you're saying
>the idea never existed before?
>
>Make up your mind.

Light speed wrt its source IS constant.



Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on
On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 23:13:26 -0700 (PDT), Jerry
<Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote:

>On Sep 11, 12:21�am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>> "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:00334a99$0$2976$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com...
>>
>> > "Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message
>>
>> Let look at Henry's non-relativistic 'BaTH' argument two possible ways...
>>
>> Assume the light rays are a propagating wave.
>>
>> A propagating wave is always observed to have same wavelength by all
>> observers, but their frequency varies.
>>
>> The leading edge of the wave front is always at the same phase (same place
>> in the wave cycle)
>>
>> So if the leading edges of the two ray wave fronts arrive at the detector at
>> the same time, they will be in phase.
>>
>> If the waves also have the same frequency at a detector, then they will
>> remain in phase.
>>
>> This is the case in Sagnac.
>>
>> "BUT" says Henry, "the path lengths are difference, and so the number of
>> wavelengths is different, so the leading edges of the rays are not in phase"
>>
>> For that to be true, that means the position in the cycle of the leading
>> edge of each ray must change over time.
>>
>> So its not a propagating wave, and the rays are instead moving intrinsic
>> oscillators.
>>
>> A moving intrinsic oscillator is always observed to have same frequency by
>> all observers, but its wavelength varies.
>>
>> The position within the cycle of an intrinsic oscillator is determined by
>> time
>>
>> If two same frequency intrinsic oscillators, that started out in phase,
>> arrive at a detector at the same time, they will still be in phase.
>>
>> This is the case in Sagnac.
>>
>> Either way, you end up with a null Sagnac result.
>
>Notice, however, that Henri fantasizes about intrinsic
>oscillators that are NOT observed to have the same frequency...
>http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/HWFantasy.htm

Poor old Crank. ...has never heard of doppler shift. Obviously the frequencies
are different in the inertial frame...which is what is shown.
It is NOT obvious to the untrained eye that the frequencies are the same in the
rotating frame.

This particular animation shows only one photon...the fact is, an observer at
rest in the source rotating frame counts the same number of cycles arriving per
second in both directions.


Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
From: Androcles on

"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message
news:70hla5pfctkmq5ftdfacul2hi4g2fcovo2(a)4ax.com...
> On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 04:46:46 +0100, "Androcles"
> <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_n>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message
>>news:pbsia5tm5oe7n4lqbjsq85vgjmdc8kppd9(a)4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 05:18:45 -0700 (PDT), J Thomas <jethomas5(a)gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>hw@..(Henry Wilson, DSc) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> When light changes speed, each photon's intrinsic absolute wavelength
>>>>> also
>>>>> changes accordingly. For instance, if a photon decelerates, its
>>>>> wavecrests move
>>>>> closer together, so their flow rate remains the same....like cars on a
>>>>> highway
>>>>> in different speed zones.
>>>>
>>>>That makes perfect sense. So by your view, when light bounces off a
>>>>mirror and changes its direction, it gets the speed it would have had
>>>>if it had been emitted in that direction in the first place? And its
>>>>frequency stays the same, but its wavelength changes to match?
>>>
>>> There is not experimental evidence that clarifies this question but one
>>> would
>>> think intuitively that if light arrives ar a mirror with relative speed
>>> c+v
>>
>>It can't, it has to unifuckate to c before it gets there according to your
>>BaThwater.
>
> It is estimated that the extinction distance in ambient air is about 3 cms
> (don't ask me who determined that) but normally the air would be at rest
> with
> the mirror in this type of experiment.

So FOGs don't work...
It is estimated that the extinction distance in a vacuum is greater than
15 billion light years (don't ask me who determined that) but normally
the vacuum would be at rest with the dork in this type of experiment.

Don't forget the SoAp (Stupid ozzie Arsehole's phuckwittery) in the
WaSh in the BaTh.





From: Jonah Thomas on
"Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_n> wrote:
> "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote
> > "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote:
> >> "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote
> >> > "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote:
> >> >> "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote

> >> >> > Imagine that the speed of your light has two components. One
> >is> >> > c, the speed that the light travels on its own hook.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The other is v, the speed that the light travels because of
> >the> >> > source's speed.
> >> >>
> >> >> OK .. so c+v
> >> >>
> >> >> > Imagine that somehow the source speed is always available, and
> >> >> > when the direction of the light changes it winds up traveling
> >at> >> > the speed would have had if it had been emitted in that
> >> >direction.> >
> >> >> > So if the source is traveling in direction V at speed v, and
> >> >> > light is emitted in direction V, it travels at speed c+v.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > But if it then strikes a mirror and reflects into the opposite
> >> >> > direction, then it travels at speed c-v. The c part is now in
> >the> >> > opposite direction but the v part is unchanged and now
> >opposes> >> > the motion instead of adding to it.
> >> >>
> >> >> So if unreflected, it stays at c+v
> >> >> If reflected 180 deg, it changes to c-v (or vice versa)
> >> >> So what happens when the light gets reflected at 90 deg .. does
> >the> >> light then travel at c?
> >> >> But then, it would have forgotten its 'v' part at the next
> >> >> reflection.
> >> >
> >> > No, the point is that it doesn't forget. Reflect to any angle and
> >it> > travels at the speed it would have if it was emitted at that
> >angle.>
> >> Of course, as far as a photon is concerned .. it travelled at c
> >from> its source
> >
> > Yes. That's the rule -- light travels at c always, in its own frame,
> > the inertial frame of its source when it was emitted.

> Everything travels at speed zero in its own frame, it is always at the
> origin. Otherwise it would leave its frame behind. Clearly neither of
> you idiots have a clue what a frame of reference is.
> You should both learn the basics.

Good point. The better term is, in the frame of its source when it was
emitted.

> >> I can't see how a mirror could do anything other than reflect back
> >a> particle with the same speed that the particle had when it hit,
> >but in> a different direction (maybe losing some speed due to
> >momentum> transfer)
> >
> > I'm not ready to think about that part yet.
>
> Two dumbfucks bolstering the same myth and spreading it.

Hey, this isn't Einstein's myth. This is Ritz's myth. It appears it got
discarded becausee people believed DeSitter about double stars. I don't
believe astronomical evidence is decisive, certainly it isn't decisive
that DeSitter didn't find what he was looking for, so I want to see
whether there is anything else that fails.

MM experiment, check.
Sarlac experiment, check.

I liked Wilson's idea about arranging mirrors so that a laser signal
bounces off of them hundreds or thousands of times, as many times as is
practical, and arranging to move the mirrors fast toward each other. c+v
and c-v would not quite cancel out?