 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Logic Forum » EINSTEIN WRONG: THE SHORTEST PROOF... |
|
Page 2 of 3 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Doug Freyburger... |
 Posted: Fri Sep 11, 2009 4:10 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Peter Webb wrote:
[quote:85a342f8c6]
If you are serious, then here is how it works. The speed of light is a
constant, irrespective of which inertial frame it is measured in. You
can use any inertial reference frame as the "something" which the speed
of light is measured against.
[/quote:85a342f8c6]
It was the 1970s when I had to learn the of how special
relativity works. Maxwell's equations, magnetism being
the Lorenz contraction of moving charge and such. I am
very out of practice in recent decades.
[quote:85a342f8c6]The aether was originally intended to be
that "something" against which absolute speed was measured; SR rendered
the aether worthless for this purpose.
[/quote:85a342f8c6]
Michelson experiments demonstrated there is no aether.
That has a wide assortment of implications including
effects on how to treat Hubble expansion.
Here's the part that puzzles me - SR shows that C is the
same in any inertial frame of reference. Why is that the
same as saying it's a constant at all times in the universe?
The same everywhere and the same every-when sorta mean
the same thing and sorta don't mean the same thing. The
nature of time isn't that well known.
My problem is I think dark matter and dark energy are
getting into epicycles, yet any math about non-constant
C I've ever seen has been from cranks.
Setting aside a mechanism for it, what if the current
value of C changed gradually over time on a scale similar
to Hubble's constant? That is to say the apparent receding
of distant galaxies is from that gradual change not from
receding? Or at least the acceleration is from that not
from actually accelerating expansion. But C is the mapping
of distance to time so what would it even mean for C to
change?
Various data don't quite fit with simple gravity models -
The Voyagers drifting more than expected. The need to
introduce dark matter and dark energy that have never been
observed. If they could all be explained by something
simple but not obvious.
I first tried thinking of the expansion of the universe in
terms of quantum mechanics. The idea of a "Planck cell"
is a rehash of the aether, and if the expansion were by
inserting new "Planck cells" it would take longer for light
to reach us from distant places rather than red shifting.
The Michelson experiments show this is not the right answer.
But Planck's constant is similar to C in being a mapping of
distance to time.
So if the universe is expanding everywhere at the same
(accelerating) rate, I don't get how C and/or Planck's
constant changing across time isn't a simpler explanation
that doesn't need to introduce unknowns like dark matter
and dark energy. Space gets bigger because the mapping of
distance to time shifts gradually - A hypothesis I find
simpler than dark energy but I don't have the math skills
to express C as a mixture that includes Hubble expansion.
It seems crank-like but somehow it seems less crank-like
than dark matter and dark energy.
Distance (the size of the universe) getting bigger with
constant C is very much the same as C getting slower with
constant size of the universe, isn't it? If time's
symmetrical then the two views are identical, but time is
not symmetrical. Try as I might I can't see how this
view is any worse than dark energy. Except it's pretty
unromantic for prospects of time and the future. Some
creepy CS Lewis Narnia imagery in there ... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Androcles... |
| Posted: Fri Sep 11, 2009 5:01 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Doug Freyburger" <dfreybur at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:h8ehtg$nfi$1 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org...
[quote:b7db78acb0]Peter Webb wrote:
If you are serious, then here is how it works. The speed of light is a
constant, irrespective of which inertial frame it is measured in. You can
use any inertial reference frame as the "something" which the speed of
light is measured against.
It was the 1970s when I had to learn the of how special
relativity works. Maxwell's equations, magnetism being
the Lorenz contraction of moving charge and such. I am
very out of practice in recent decades.
The aether was originally intended to be
that "something" against which absolute speed was measured; SR rendered
the aether worthless for this purpose.
Michelson experiments demonstrated there is no aether.
That has a wide assortment of implications including
effects on how to treat Hubble expansion.
Here's the part that puzzles me - SR shows that C is the
same in any inertial frame of reference. Why is that the
same as saying it's a constant at all times in the universe?
The same everywhere and the same every-when sorta mean
the same thing and sorta don't mean the same thing. The
nature of time isn't that well known.
My problem is I think dark matter and dark energy are
getting into epicycles, yet any math about non-constant
C I've ever seen has been from cranks.
[/quote:b7db78acb0]
"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in
the stationary system, with the velocity c-v, so that x'/(c-v) = t" --
Albert Einstein.
ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Einstein must have been a crank, because any math about non-constant
C you've ever seen has been from cranks. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)... |
| Posted: Fri Sep 11, 2009 6:42 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Dear Doug Freyburger:
"Doug Freyburger" <dfreybur at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:h8ehtg$nfi$1 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org...
....
[quote:8600e60899]Here's the part that puzzles me - SR shows that C is the
same in any inertial frame of reference.
[/quote:8600e60899]
No. Maxwell's equations provide a constant c, and SR allow you
then to infer what a moving observer would measure, based on
measurements in your own frame.
[quote:8600e60899]Why is that the same as saying it's a constant at all
times in the universe?
[/quote:8600e60899]
It isn't.
....
[quote:8600e60899]Setting aside a mechanism for it, what if the current
value of C changed gradually over time on a scale similar
to Hubble's constant?
[/quote:8600e60899]
As part of the set of constants defining the "fine structure
constant", it has been shown to have changed by 1 part in 10^8 in
the last 14 billion years.
[quote:8600e60899]That is to say the apparent receding of distant galaxies
is from that gradual change not from receding?
[/quote:8600e60899]
No. It says nothing about that.
[quote:8600e60899]Or at least the acceleration is from that not from
actually accelerating expansion.
[/quote:8600e60899]
No, it says nothing about that either.
[quote:8600e60899]But C is the mapping of distance to time so what
would it even mean for C to change?
[/quote:8600e60899]
Nothing you can detect in the world around you, a world whose
size is explicitly and exactly defined by said c.
....
[quote:8600e60899]Distance (the size of the universe) getting bigger with
constant C is very much the same as C getting slower
with constant size of the universe, isn't it?
[/quote:8600e60899]
No. What it is similar to is everything "shrinking", because
"local clock rates" are increasing due to relaxation of global
curvature.
David A. Smith |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Stafford... |
| Posted: Fri Sep 11, 2009 8:05 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Here, in part, is how it all works out.
The universe is expanding. That means every particle is moving. And it
ain't like some kinda balloon - everything is expanding in every
direction at once, and at a rate us humans have described as 'c', for
better or worse. (That suggests that nothing within existence can move
at a rate greater than the creation of space. How more simple can that
be stated?)
The singular 'law of physics', as you humans can conceive of the concept
is inertia. In other words, moving anything in the universe means
overcoming statis, or resisting more of the same.
So, when subject is forced into motion, such as what happens when
particles are forced into new 'space', the particles have resistance -
IOW, they are not inclined to change their current state.
Everything in our universe is coerced into expansion, and every particle
is subject to the thing called inertia. At the quantum scale, there is
the strong force which has unfathomable strength to keep its parts close
enough, and the weak-force persists: it is, after all, elementary.
So, gravity can be described as the sum resistance to expansion (due to
inertia resistance, which is, really the First Principle.)
Time is quite simply the dimension in our ordinary 3D world described as
the 3D expiring, constantly, as the universe expands. Humankind's time
is irrelevant; a wholly self-serving delusion. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter Webb... |
| Posted: Sat Sep 12, 2009 6:05 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Doug Freyburger" <dfreybur at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:h8ehtg$nfi$1 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org...
[quote:db2eb7c148]Peter Webb wrote:
If you are serious, then here is how it works. The speed of light is a
constant, irrespective of which inertial frame it is measured in. You can
use any inertial reference frame as the "something" which the speed of
light is measured against.
It was the 1970s when I had to learn the of how special
relativity works. Maxwell's equations, magnetism being
the Lorenz contraction of moving charge and such. I am
very out of practice in recent decades.
The aether was originally intended to be
that "something" against which absolute speed was measured; SR rendered
the aether worthless for this purpose.
Michelson experiments demonstrated there is no aether.
That has a wide assortment of implications including
effects on how to treat Hubble expansion.
Here's the part that puzzles me - SR shows that C is the
same in any inertial frame of reference. Why is that the
same as saying it's a constant at all times in the universe?
The same everywhere and the same every-when sorta mean
the same thing and sorta don't mean the same thing. The
nature of time isn't that well known.
[/quote:db2eb7c148]
No. Here is what SR means when it says C is a constant. If you are in an
inertial frame of reference, and you measure how long it takes light to
travel one metre using an atomic clock it will always be the same.
[quote:db2eb7c148]My problem is I think dark matter and dark energy are
getting into epicycles, yet any math about non-constant
C I've ever seen has been from cranks.
Setting aside a mechanism for it, what if the current
value of C changed gradually over time on a scale similar
to Hubble's constant?
[/quote:db2eb7c148]
There have been several legitimate theories which suggest this, but the
problem is that this changes just about everything in astronomy,
astrophysics and cosmology, and invariably has a lot of explaining to do.
[quote:db2eb7c148]That is to say the apparent receding
of distant galaxies is from that gradual change not from
receding? Or at least the acceleration is from that not
from actually accelerating expansion. But C is the mapping
of distance to time so what would it even mean for C to
change?
[/quote:db2eb7c148]
The Universe is believed to have expanded while C remained constant, and
distant galaxies presumably recede with speed relative to us of greater than
C (this doesn't contradict SR), I say presumably because they are outside
our even horizon and hence theoretically impossible to verify.
[quote:db2eb7c148]
Various data don't quite fit with simple gravity models -
The Voyagers drifting more than expected. The need to
introduce dark matter and dark energy that have never been
observed. If they could all be explained by something
simple but not obvious.
[/quote:db2eb7c148]
Sure.
[quote:db2eb7c148]I first tried thinking of the expansion of the universe in
terms of quantum mechanics. The idea of a "Planck cell"
is a rehash of the aether, and if the expansion were by
inserting new "Planck cells" it would take longer for light
to reach us from distant places rather than red shifting.
The Michelson experiments show this is not the right answer.
But Planck's constant is similar to C in being a mapping of
distance to time.
[/quote:db2eb7c148]
No, Planck's constant is a mapping from energy to time, not distance to
time.
[quote:db2eb7c148]So if the universe is expanding everywhere at the same
(accelerating) rate, I don't get how C and/or Planck's
constant changing across time isn't a simpler explanation
that doesn't need to introduce unknowns like dark matter
and dark energy.
[/quote:db2eb7c148]
Because it screws up a bilion other things, from the ratio of elements we
see, to cosmic background radiation, to galaxy formation ...
[quote:db2eb7c148]Space gets bigger because the mapping of
distance to time shifts gradually - A hypothesis I find
simpler than dark energy but I don't have the math skills
to express C as a mixture that includes Hubble expansion.
It seems crank-like but somehow it seems less crank-like
than dark matter and dark energy.
[/quote:db2eb7c148]
Dark matter is somewhat less crank like than dark energy. Speculating that
the values of fundamental constants change over time is legitimate, but
tends to immediately break lots of other theories and experimental evidence
that the Universe billions of years ago functioned as far as we can see
using the same laws of physics as today.
[quote:db2eb7c148]Distance (the size of the universe) getting bigger with
constant C is very much the same as C getting slower with
constant size of the universe, isn't it? If time's
symmetrical then the two views are identical, but time is
not symmetrical. Try as I might I can't see how this
view is any worse than dark energy. Except it's pretty
unromantic for prospects of time and the future. Some
creepy CS Lewis Narnia imagery in there ...[/quote:db2eb7c148] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Stafford... |
| Posted: Sat Sep 12, 2009 11:16 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <4aab8e7e$0$1157$afc38c87 at (no spam) news.optusnet.com.au>,
"Peter Webb" <webbfamily at (no spam) DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
[quote:7a99459154]"Doug Freyburger" <dfreybur at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:h8ehtg$nfi$1 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org...
Here's the part that puzzles me - SR shows that C is the
same in any inertial frame of reference. Why is that the
same as saying it's a constant at all times in the universe?
The same everywhere and the same every-when sorta mean
the same thing and sorta don't mean the same thing. The
nature of time isn't that well known.
No. Here is what SR means when it says C is a constant. If you are in an
inertial frame of reference, and you measure how long it takes light to
travel one metre using an atomic clock it will always be the same.
[/quote:7a99459154]
Yes, for local metrics that is true. The two are perfectly coupled
because C is also very near the Rate of Creation, IOW, the rate at which
space/time occurs and creation is constant. C, OTOH, need not be
constant and we cannot know because when/where it is relative to us is
beyond our event horizon, beyond our reality.
[quote:7a99459154]Dark matter is somewhat less crank like than dark energy. Speculating that
the values of fundamental constants change over time is legitimate, but
tends to immediately break lots of other theories and experimental evidence
that the Universe billions of years ago functioned as far as we can see
using the same laws of physics as today.
[/quote:7a99459154]
I sometimes think that the so-called Dark Matter is the invisible
non-matter that fills the universe so that is moderates all energy as if
it were a permeable 'something', but not ether. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rock Brentwood... |
| Posted: Sat Sep 12, 2009 12:55 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sep 10, 3:14 am, Don Stockbauer <donstockba... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
[quote:1e312dbf8d]On Sep 10, 12:15 am, Pentcho Valev <pva... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
Premise: The wavelength is determined by the light source and cannot
depend on the movements of the observer.
Premise: (frequency)=(speed of light)/(wavelength)
Conclusion: If the observer is initially at rest relative to but then
starts moving towards the light source, the frequency (Doppler effect)
and THE SPEED OF LIGHT INCREASE.
Pentcho Valev
pva... at (no spam) yahoo.com
The frequency increases, but the speed doesn't.
What is the speed relative to?
[/quote:1e312dbf8d]
One can also take the speed relative to the frame(s) of reference in
which the constitutive law (D,H) <- (E,B) is isotropic.
If the Lagrangian L governing the field (which yields D = at (no spam) L/ at (no spam) E, H = -
at (no spam) L/ at (no spam) B as the partial derivatives with respect to B, E) has an
isotropic frame, then it can be expressed as a function of the 3
isotropic invariants E^2/2, B^2/2, B.E.
So, the only question is whether such frames are unique or not. This
depends both on the spacetime signature and the nature of the
Lagrangian. ALL combinations are possible, and neither relativity/non-
relativity specifically includes or excludes either.
It bears pointing out, before going on any further, that the ACTUAL
form of the constitutive laws governing outer space are NOT boost-
invariant, but define a unique isotropic frame. Velocities can be
taken with respect to this frame. This remains true independently of
whether Relativity holds true or not. (The difference between what a
relativistic and non-relativistic theory say then boilds down to the
difference in the constitutive laws -- which is what I'm about to get
to).
For a boost non-invariant isotropic frame, the wave velocity is
relative to the isotropic frame -- again, true independent of whether
you're dealing with relativity or non-relativistic form of
electromagnetism. Again, this will be seen in more detail below.
One can, in fact, classify all the different types of constitutive
relations by which invariances they exhibit, along the following
lines:
"Vacuuon" -- translation invariant
"Quasi-Vacuum" -- rotation & boost invariant
"Vacuum" -- Vacuuon & Quasi-Vacuum
"Isotropic" -- rotation invariant
(the Vacuuon class corresponding to one of the 4 families of "irreps"
discussed by Wigner in his 1939 paper, but neither named by him nor by
successors -- the other 3 being Luxon, Tachyon and Tardion).
So, it would be of interest to see what the ACTUAL difference, or
contrast, between what a relativistic and non-relativistic signature
would give you, if there is indeed a unique isotropic frame.
In general, since L would be a function of the invariants, one can
define
epsilon = at (no spam) L/ at (no spam) (E^2/2)
-1/mu = at (no spam) L/ at (no spam) (B^2/2)
theta = at (no spam) L/ at (no spam) (B.E)
in which case the constitutive laws become
D = epsilon E + theta B; H = B/mu - theta E.
This holds only in the isotropic frame. Maxwell believed that only one
such frame existed, for instance. Thus, he introduced a velocity G as
an extra letter in the Maxwell alphabet (A, B, C = total current, D,
E, F = force, G, H, I = magnetization, J; all of which Maxwell
introduced). In the Relativistic form of Maxwell's relations, G would
STILL be present. This was spelled out by the series of papers by
Einstein and Laub in 1908-1909 and also by Minkowski around the same
time.
These laws only hold in the isotropic frame. To answer the question of
what they look like in a general frame, one then needs to carry out a
boost. The definition of "boost" is also where the definition of
spacetime signature enters into play. So, first signature.
The isotropic signatures for 4-dimensions are given by the invariants
beta dt^2 - alpha dr^2; beta del^2 - alpha ( at (no spam) / at (no spam) t)^2.
The case alpha beta > 0 is the Lorentzian signature; alpha beta < 0
the Euclidean signature; alpha = 0 (beta non-0) the Galilean signature
of non-relativistic theory; and beta = 0 (alpha non-zero) the
Archimedean signature (of the Hellenistic Era).
The most general transformation respecting these invariants may be
deemed the "biorthogonal" transformation -- one orthogonal with
respect to the two metrics associated with the respective invariants
(the metric g <-> beta dt^2 - alpha dr^2 and dual metric g' <-> beta
del^2 - alpha ( at (no spam) / at (no spam) t)^2). This is given in 3-vector form by
delta(dr) = omega x dr - beta upsilon dt
delta(dt) = -alpha upsilon.dr
delta(del) = omega x del + alpha upsilon ( at (no spam) / at (no spam) t)
delta( at (no spam) / at (no spam) t) = beta upsilon.del
where omega generates rotations, and upsilon generates boost. From
this you can read off the transformations for the components
A.dr - phi dt
of the potential one form:
delta(A) = omega x A - alpha upsilon phi
delta(phi) = -beta upsilon.A
From this, one reads off the transformations for the components E and
B of the field 2-form:
F = dA = B.(dr x dr/2) + E.(dr dt)
are given by
delta(B)
= delta(del x A)
= (omega x del) x A + alpha upsilon x at (no spam) A/ at (no spam) t + del x (omega x A) -
del x (alpha upsilon phi)
= omega x B - alpha upsilon x E
and
delta(E) = omega x E + beta upsilon x B.
In finite form, for a boost velocity v, a pure boost yields
Bp -> Bp
Bn -> (Bn - alpha v x E)/root(1 - alpha beta v^2)
Ep -> Ep
En -> (En + beta v x B)/root(1 - alpha beta v^2)
which holds for any boost velocity v where alpha beta v^2 < 1. Here ()
p and ()n are, respectively, the components parallel and perpendicular
to the boost.
For the components D and H of the dual 2-form
D.(dr x dr/2) - H.(dr dt)
one similarly derives
Dp -> Dp
Dn -> (Dn + alpha v x H)/root(1 - alpha beta v^2)
Hp -> Hp
Hn -> (Hn - beta v x D)/root(1 - alpha beta v^2).
Thus, under transformation by a boost velocity G, one obtains the
relations
Dp = epsilon Ep + theta Bp
Dn + alpha G x H = epsilon (En + beta G x B) + theta (Bn - alpha G
x E)
Hp = 1/mu Bp - theta Ep
Hn - beta G x D = 1/mu (Bn - alpha G x E) - theta (En + beta G x B)
which combine to yield the following:
D + alpha G x H = epsilon (E + beta G x B) + theta (B - alpha G x
E)
H - beta G x D = 1/mu (B - alpha G x E) - theta (E + beta G x B).
NOW ... it's at this point, you can ask whether there is a unique
isotropic frame or not; and what the contrast between the different
signatures looks like in all cases, whether it is unique or not).
Ignore the parity non-invariant parameter theta. In general all three
parameters, epsilon, theta, mu are functions of the 3 isotropic
invariants. For null fields or near null fields (ones where the 2
boost & rotation invariants are 0), these functions become nearly
constant. Theta can be arbitrarily changed by an additive constant, by
redefining D -> D + theta' B, H -> H - theta' E. So, for constant or
near-constant theta, it can be removed from the picture.
The equations reduce to
D + alpha G x H = epsilon (E + beta G x B)
B - alpha G x E = mu (H - beta G x D).
For a Lorentzian signature, one can take alpha = (1/c)^2, beta = 1,
and then one gets
D + (1/c)^2 G x H = epsilon (E + G x B)
B - (1/c)^2 G x E = mu (H - G x D).
This is the Einstein-Laub form of the constitutive law.
For a Galilean signature (alpha = 0, beta = 1), one has Maxwell's (and
Thomson's) form of the constitutive law:
D = epsilon (E + G x B), B = mu (H - G x D).
To ask the general question of what combinations yields boost-
invariant constitutive laws, solve for (D,H).
D = epsilon E + (beta mu epsilon - alpha)/(mu (1 - alpha beta G^2))
G x (B - alpha G x E)
H = mu B + (beta mu epsilon - alpha)/(mu(1 - alpha beta G^2)) G x
(E + beta G x B)
The case alpha beta G^2 = 1 (the "Casimir Threshold") stands out as a
singular case. Here, there remains a semblance of boost non-invariance
EVEN IN the Relativistic domain. This is unknown in the literature, as
of yet.
Away from the Casimir Threshold, boost invariance reduces to the
condition that
alpha = beta mu epsilon.
For the Lorentzian signature, this means that the wave velocity, which
is given by (1/V)^2 = mu epsilon, will match the invariant velocity c,
which is given by (1/c)^2 = alpha, where beta = 1.
More generally, for boost non-invariant fields in the Lorentz
signature, the formulae reduce to the following expressions in terms
of the wave speed V:
D = epsilon E + epsilon (c^2 - V^2)/(c^2 - G^2) G x (B - (1/c)^2 G
x E)
H = mu B + epsilon (c^2 - V^2)/(c^2 - G^2) G x (E + G x B)
Here, you can also see what happens at the Casimir Threshold, V = G:
D = epsilon E + epsilon G x (B - (1/c)^2 G x E)
H = mu B + epsilon G x (E + G x B)
This relation holds true EVEN WHEN |G| = c! Hence, among other things,
we can answer Einstein's own question "what is it like to travel
alongside a lightr beam?"
But that isn't the end of it! One can solve for other combinations,
e.g. (E,H) in terms of (D,B); (D,B) in terms of (E,H) or (E,B) in
terms (D,H). Two solutions yields REGULAR transitions across the
Casimir threshold and singular thresholds on the causal barrier, |G| -
[quote:1e312dbf8d]c.
[/quote:1e312dbf8d]
One, however, yields a regular transition across BOTH the Casimir and
causal threshold, only going singular as |G| -> c^2/V.
So, we can actually go further, and answer Einstein's unasked
question: "what's it then like to overtake the light beam?"
Note: that the picture presented gets far more complex when
generalizing to gauge fields ("gauge field" does NOT mean Yang-Mills
field, which it is often confused with in the literature, but is far
more general; but yet conforms to what are essentially non-linear
generalizations of Maxwell's equations). .Here, there are two families
of fields (E^a, B^a) one for each degree of symmetry (a) of the gauge
field, two dual familiar (D_a, H_a), and the isotropic invariants now
become 7 FAMILIES in place of the 3 invariants for electromagnetism:
E^a.E^b/2, E^a.B^b, B^a.B^b/2,
E^a x E^b . E^c/6, E^a x E^b . B^c/2,
E^a . B^b x B^c/2, B^a x B^b . B^c/6.
So, there are now 7 families of coefficients in place of epsilon, mu
and theta. Correspondingly, the conditrions for determining which
field configurations and constitutive laws are both isotropic and
boost invariants generalize. Now, it's no longer just a single extra
velocity V = 1/root(mu epsilon), but a huge number of coefficient
combinations that define boost-invariance. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Jones... |
| Posted: Sat Sep 12, 2009 8:25 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
John Jones wrote:
[quote:1e884e9ac7]Pentcho Valev wrote:
Premise: The wavelength is determined by the light source and cannot
depend on the movements of the observer.
Premise: (frequency)=(speed of light)/(wavelength)
Conclusion: If the observer is initially at rest relative to but then
starts moving towards the light source, the frequency (Doppler effect)
and THE SPEED OF LIGHT INCREASE.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev at (no spam) yahoo.com[/quote:1e884e9ac7] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| BradGuth... |
| Posted: Sun Sep 13, 2009 6:41 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sep 9, 10:15 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote:e9d160c0b7]Premise: The wavelength is determined by the light source and cannot
depend on the movements of the observer.
Premise: (frequency)=(speed of light)/(wavelength)
Conclusion: If the observer is initially at rest relative to but then
starts moving towards the light source, the frequency (Doppler effect)
and THE SPEED OF LIGHT INCREASE.
Pentcho Valev
pva... at (no spam) yahoo.com
[/quote:e9d160c0b7]
Correct, whereas the merging or closing velocity of two individual
photon wave-fronts, each arriving at exactly180 degrees from one
another is 2c. The speed of a photon is therefore directly relative
to the velocity of the observer (regardless of the original
transmitted monochromatic spectrum/frequency of either photon). A
Doppler demodulation of this proof should confirm this kind of dipolar
merging event.
~ BG |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| BradGuth... |
| Posted: Sun Sep 13, 2009 6:59 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sep 10, 6:50 pm, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam... at (no spam) DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
[quote:c08765ac3e]"Kevin B. Murphy" <kmurphy... at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote in messagenews:gJOdnSL63uon7jTXnZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d at (no spam) giganews.com...
On 10-Sep-2009, Pentcho Valev <pva... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com sci.math:1246404 sci.astro:542036
alt.philosophy:704144 sci.logic:266843
Premise: The wavelength is determined by the light source and cannot
depend on the movements of the observer.
Premise: (frequency)=(speed of light)/(wavelength)
Conclusion: If the observer is initially at rest relative to but then
starts moving towards the light source, the frequency (Doppler effect)
and THE SPEED OF LIGHT INCREASE.
Pentcho Valev
pva... at (no spam) yahoo.com
I think the premise here that Einstein is using here is that your clock
runs
faster if you rush towards the source of the light so there is no change
in
frequency (cycles/unit of time).
No, in SR (and GR for that matter) if you move towards a light source, it
appears to have (and in fact does have) a higher frequency. Hence the red
shift for receding galaxies.
With you as a teacher, and Valev as a student, I don't think a lot will be
learned. Good though your intentions probably are.
--
If you are at war, you should be proud... If you are at peace, you should
be
ashamed.
[/quote:c08765ac3e]
Regardless of the original photon spectrum, the Doppler redshift/
blueshift is correct, whereas the merging or closing velocity of two
individual photon wave-fronts, each arriving at exactly180 degrees
from one another is a blueshift of 2c. The speed of a photon is
therefore its frequency is directly relative to the velocity of the
observer (regardless of the original transmitted monochromatic
spectrum/frequency of either photon). A Doppler demodulation of this
proof should confirm this kind of dipolar merging event.
Another related question; are there retro-photons (transponding or
anti-photons)?
If there’s electrons and positrons, then perhaps we should be
considering antiphotons.
~ BG |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Paul Stowe... |
| Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 6:30 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sep 10, 6:47 pm, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam... at (no spam) DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
[quote:87e4d59823]"Don Stockbauer" <donstockba... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:12fa66be-55a3-4544-989a-7acd500f9e2e at (no spam) x6g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 10, 3:14 am, Don Stockbauer <donstockba... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 10, 12:15 am, Pentcho Valev <pva... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
Premise: The wavelength is determined by the light source and cannot
depend on the movements of the observer.
Premise: (frequency)=(speed of light)/(wavelength)
Conclusion: If the observer is initially at rest relative to but then
starts moving towards the light source, the frequency (Doppler effect)
and THE SPEED OF LIGHT INCREASE.
Pentcho Valev
pva... at (no spam) yahoo.com
The frequency increases, but the speed doesn't.
What is the speed relative to?
I'm really kind of serious here. I mean, if the SOL is so-and-so, it
must be traveling relative to something which serves as a baseline
for measurement. Was this settled at some point? I mean, like, was
it determined to be theaether? Or maybe it travels relative to all
the mass in the Universe?
________________________
If you are serious, then here is how it works. The speed of light is a
constant, irrespective of which inertial frame it is measured in. You can
use any inertial reference frame as the "something" which the speed of light
is measured against. The aether was originally intended to be that
"something" against which absolute speed was measured; SR rendered the
aetherworthless for this purpose.
[/quote:87e4d59823]
This statement is simply, wrong! The aether was never something
against which absolute speed was measured. It was the "something"
that gave rise to c, its properties, and fields. I was thought that
by measuring our speed with respect to its base (rest frame) that the
measurement would demonstrate a unique characteristic which would
'prove' its existence. The rest frame is just one aspect of it since
the aether was considered a physical media akin to a gas.
At least get the basics right... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Zinnic... |
| Posted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 4:10 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sep 18, 11:38 am, "Androcles" <Headmas... at (no spam) Hogwarts.physics_o>
wrote:
[quote:1e9a4be7d0]Maybe this'll help:
Match the caption to the gif:
A)http://tinyurl.com/lv2fl7
B)http://tinyurl.com/njgouh
C)http://tinyurl.com/klkfc9
D)http://tinyurl.com/l6lt4g
1) applies to light (in vacuum) and sound (in air)
2) applies to light but not sound
3) applies to sound but not light
4) applies to neither light nor sound
The SOL is MEASURED relative to the source.- -
[/quote:1e9a4be7d0]
Damn! I had the above all worked out and now you confuse me with that!
Do I have this correct. You claim that if the SOL from a stationary
source is C, then the SOL from a source moving at V towards the
observer is C - V (i.e. relative to source) and if away from the
observer is C + V?
However, Pentcho (and you ?) claims;
'"if the observer is initially at rest relative to but then starts
moving towards the light source, the frequency (Doppler effect) and
THE SPEED OF LIGHT INCREASE"
However, when the observer moves towards the light source at V, is
this not equivalent (relatively) to the source moving towards the
observer, in which the THE SPEED OF LIGHT DECREASES to C - V (see
above)?
How do you reconcile this apparent contradiction?
Perhaps this will help: You should use the PLONCK definition of the
speed of light (SOL) in your calculations.. That is- the SOL is its
propagation thru one Planck of vacuum space in one Planck of vacuous
time.
Working in a vacuum you will quickly realize how this eliminates the
paradox (C + V, and C - V) raised by your claim that the SOL is
relative to the speed of it's source.
Zinnic |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Androcles... |
| Posted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 10:23 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Zinnic" <zeenric2 at (no spam) gate.net> wrote in message
news:2b243715-0a2b-4a30-97c9-852cdf54de00 at (no spam) p15g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 18, 11:38 am, "Androcles" <Headmas... at (no spam) Hogwarts.physics_o>
wrote:
[quote:1c19a93a3f]Maybe this'll help:
Match the caption to the gif:
A)http://tinyurl.com/lv2fl7
B)http://tinyurl.com/njgouh
C)http://tinyurl.com/klkfc9
D)http://tinyurl.com/l6lt4g
1) applies to light (in vacuum) and sound (in air)
2) applies to light but not sound
3) applies to sound but not light
4) applies to neither light nor sound
The SOL is MEASURED relative to the source.- -
[/quote:1c19a93a3f]
Damn! I had the above all worked out and now you confuse me with that!
===================================================
What are the answers, then?
I can't help you unless I know if you have it right or not, I'm not a mind
reader.
===================================================
Do I have this correct. You claim that if the SOL from a stationary
source is C
===================================================
No, you have it incorrect. Nothing in the Universe is stationary except
the SUM of all the momenta of ALL the massive objects in the Universe,
which is zero. If the entire universe moved, what would it move relative to?
===================================================
, then the SOL from a source moving at V towards the
observer is C - V (i.e. relative to source) and if away from the
observer is C + V?
However, Pentcho (and you ?) claims;
'"if the observer is initially at rest relative to but then starts
moving towards the light source, the frequency (Doppler effect) and
THE SPEED OF LIGHT INCREASE"
============================================
That's right. If you run toward a bullet from my gun the bullet will
be faster for you. Run away and it'll be slower. Move so fast that
the bullet can't catch you and the bullet will have zero speed.
Move even faster and the bullet will be going away from you.
Why would light be any different?
============================================
However, when the observer moves towards the light source at V, is
this not equivalent (relatively) to the source moving towards the
observer, in which the THE SPEED OF LIGHT DECREASES to C - V (see
above)?
===================================================
No, the light increases to c+v for you.
How do you reconcile this apparent contradiction?
====================================================
I resolve it by common sense. The only contradiction is you lack the ability
to apply mathematics to physical situations.
====================================================
Perhaps this will help: You should use the PLONCK definition of the
speed of light (SOL) in your calculations.. That is- the SOL is its
propagation thru one Planck of vacuum space in one Planck of vacuous
time.
Working in a vacuum you will quickly realize how this eliminates the
paradox (C + V, and C - V) raised by your claim that the SOL is
relative to the speed of it's source.
Zinnic
====================================================
Perhaps this will help. You should stop babbling and use some common
sense. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Zinnic... |
| Posted: Sun Sep 20, 2009 3:17 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sep 19, 11:23 am, "Androcles" <Headmas... at (no spam) Hogwarts.physics_o>
wrote:
[quote:b19b5aa7f1]"Zinnic" <zeenr... at (no spam) gate.net> wrote in message
news:2b243715-0a2b-4a30-97c9-852cdf54de00 at (no spam) p15g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 18, 11:38 am, "Androcles" <Headmas... at (no spam) Hogwarts.physics_o
wrote:
Maybe this'll help:
Match the caption to the gif:
A)http://tinyurl.com/lv2fl7
B)http://tinyurl.com/njgouh
C)http://tinyurl.com/klkfc9
D)http://tinyurl.com/l6lt4g
1) applies to light (in vacuum) and sound (in air)
2) applies to light but not sound
3) applies to sound but not light
4) applies to neither light nor sound
The SOL is MEASURED relative to the source.- -
Damn! I had the above all worked out and now you confuse me with that!
==================================================> What are the answers, then?
I can't help you unless I know if you have it right or not, I'm not a mind
reader.
==================================================
Do I have this correct. You claim that if the SOL from a stationary
source is C
==================================================> No, you have it incorrect. Nothing in the Universe is stationary except
the SUM of all the momenta of ALL the massive objects in the Universe,
which is zero. If the entire universe moved, what would it move relative to?
==================================================
, then the SOL from a source moving at V towards the
observer is C - V (i.e. relative to source) and if away from the
observer is C + V?
However, Pentcho (and you ?) claims;
'"if the observer is initially at rest relative to but then starts
moving towards the light source, the frequency (Doppler effect) and
THE SPEED OF LIGHT INCREASE"
===========================================> That's right. If you run toward a bullet from my gun the bullet will
be faster for you. Run away and it'll be slower. Move so fast that
the bullet can't catch you and the bullet will have zero speed.
Move even faster and the bullet will be going away from you.
Why would light be any different?
===========================================
Now you confuse me even furthur![/quote:b19b5aa7f1]
I know you will agree that the muzzle speed of a bullet (V) IS NOT
relative to the speed of the gun muzzle (v). But you claimed that
light is DIFFERENT in that the speed of light (SOL) IS relative to
it's source.
My 'common sense' has failed to fathom your reasoning for this, so I
await your common sense explanation!
[quote:b19b5aa7f1]However, when the observer moves towards the light source at V, is
this not equivalent (relatively) to the source moving towards the
observer, in which the THE SPEED OF LIGHT DECREASES to C - V (see
above)?
==================================================> No, the light increases to c+v for you.
How do you reconcile this apparent contradiction?
===================================================> I resolve it by common sense. The only contradiction is you lack the ability
to apply mathematics to physical situations.
[/quote:b19b5aa7f1]
See above! Your grasp of relativity seems somewhat tenuous. If you are
married, I suggest that each night you carefully check you are not
bedding one of your Uncles.
Zinnic |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Don Stockbauer... |
| Posted: Sun Sep 20, 2009 3:34 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sep 20, 8:17 am, Zinnic <zeenr... at (no spam) gate.net> wrote:
[quote:50e660fe28]On Sep 19, 11:23 am, "Androcles" <Headmas... at (no spam) Hogwarts.physics_o
wrote:
"Zinnic" <zeenr... at (no spam) gate.net> wrote in message
news:2b243715-0a2b-4a30-97c9-852cdf54de00 at (no spam) p15g2000vbl.googlegroups.com....
On Sep 18, 11:38 am, "Androcles" <Headmas... at (no spam) Hogwarts.physics_o
wrote:
Maybe this'll help:
Match the caption to the gif:
A)http://tinyurl.com/lv2fl7
B)http://tinyurl.com/njgouh
C)http://tinyurl.com/klkfc9
D)http://tinyurl.com/l6lt4g
1) applies to light (in vacuum) and sound (in air)
2) applies to light but not sound
3) applies to sound but not light
4) applies to neither light nor sound
The SOL is MEASURED relative to the source.- -
Damn! I had the above all worked out and now you confuse me with that!
==================================================> > What are the answers, then?
I can't help you unless I know if you have it right or not, I'm not a mind
reader.
==================================================
Do I have this correct. You claim that if the SOL from a stationary
source is C
==================================================> > No, you have it incorrect. Nothing in the Universe is stationary except
the SUM of all the momenta of ALL the massive objects in the Universe,
which is zero. If the entire universe moved, what would it move relative to?
==================================================
, then the SOL from a source moving at V towards the
observer is C - V (i.e. relative to source) and if away from the
observer is C + V?
However, Pentcho (and you ?) claims;
'"if the observer is initially at rest relative to but then starts
moving towards the light source, the frequency (Doppler effect) and
THE SPEED OF LIGHT INCREASE"
===========================================> > That's right. If you run toward a bullet from my gun the bullet will
be faster for you. Run away and it'll be slower. Move so fast that
the bullet can't catch you and the bullet will have zero speed.
Move even faster and the bullet will be going away from you.
Why would light be any different?
===========================================
Now you confuse me even furthur!
I know you will agree that the muzzle speed of a bullet (V) IS NOT
relative to the speed of the gun muzzle (v). But you claimed that
light is DIFFERENT in that the speed of light (SOL) IS relative to
it's source.
My 'common sense' has failed to fathom your reasoning for this, so I
await your common sense explanation!
However, when the observer moves towards the light source at V, is
this not equivalent (relatively) to the source moving towards the
observer, in which the THE SPEED OF LIGHT DECREASES to C - V (see
above)?
==================================================> > No, the light increases to c+v for you.
How do you reconcile this apparent contradiction?
===================================================> > I resolve it by common sense. The only contradiction is you lack the ability
to apply mathematics to physical situations.
See above! Your grasp of relativity seems somewhat tenuous. If you are
married, I suggest that each night you carefully check you are not
bedding one of your Uncles.
Zinnic
[/quote:50e660fe28]
You might want to detail an exact procedure for him/her to go by. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Tue Dec 15, 2009 3:48 am
|
|