 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Physics - Relativity Forum » An Embarrassing Question for Relativists... |
|
Page 20 of 23 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Inertial... |
 Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 7:32 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW at (no spam) ..> wrote in message
news:a9a1f59klq42s3172hl58461c7epjbnlev at (no spam) 4ax.com...
[quote]On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 23:51:13 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW at (no spam) ..> wrote in message
news:qjsve5pf1a25sb02jl3kg6gqjpv8v16bvb at (no spam) 4ax.com...
And that is NOT closing or separation speed, which by definition uses
the
difference in distance between TWO object between two times as observed
in
an observers frame. That is also the same as the addition/subtraction
of
the (relative) speeds of the two objects in that frame.
It does NOT use the difference in distance of a single object from the
observer between two times in that observers frame, which is what
relative
speed is.
Two very different concepts, that happen to have the same value in
theories
where Galilean transforms apply
Closing speed is the only true relative speed.
Nosense. The speed of A relative to B is and must be the speed that B
measure A to have. And that is NOT the definition of closing speed.
Closing speed is the rate at which a third observer measures the distance
between A and B decreasing. That's not relative speed..
Any third observer will get the same answer if his experiment is any good.
[/quote]
Nope
[quote]Any theory that doesn't get c
for the speed of light between a source and observer that are MAR is
bogus
It *is* c. The speed of light is c for EVERY observer.
That's just part of the religion you have been victim to.
[/quote]
I have no religion. And experiment shows the light speed is source
independent. You're living in your own little fantasy world of denial with
the fairies. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Henry Wilson DSc... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 7:40 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 14:10:31 -0800 (PST), kenseto <kenseto at (no spam) erinet.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 2, 4:10 pm, HW at (no spam) ..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 06:54:04 -0800 (PST), kenseto <kens... at (no spam) erinet.com> wrote:
On Nov 1, 4:07 pm, HW at (no spam) ..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
The closing speed between any object and light is c as measured in the
object's frame of reference. If an observer sends a light pulse toward
an object then the closing speed between that light pulse and the
object is c+v or c-v.
I assume the object is moving at v wrt the absolute aether.
NO the object is moving at v wrt the observer. The observer assumes
that the speed of light in the ether is c. So when the observer sends
a light pulse toward the object the closing speed between the object
and the light pulse is c+v or c-v.
Let's see.
If the observer is moving at u wrt the aether then the object is moving at u-v
wrt Aether.
No the object has its own state of absolute motion in the ether.
[/quote]
That's what I said
[quote]So the closing speed is c-u+v wrt the aether and therefore c+v wrt
the observer.
No the observer assumes that the speed of light in the ether is
c....therefore the closing speed for a light pulse from the observer
to the object is c+v or c-v.
[/quote]
That's what I said....but I just said c+v because v can be + or -.
I can understand why you don't know how to respond when someone agrees with
you.
[quote]Very good Ken. I'm glad you got that correct without mentioning the LTs.
In that case, you will argue that the object's rods and clocks are contracted
such that they will always MEASURE OWLS to be c...so your first statement is
correct in aether theories...
NO...the speed of light is a ratio in all frames as follows:
Light path length of physical ruler (299,792,458 m)/the absolute time
content for a clock second co-moving with the ruler.
That is the same as I said.
You assume both the ruler and clock contract by the same factor.
You have now introduced the LTs.
No I didn't introduce the LT. I show that the speed of light is a
constant ratio of light path length of ruler over the absolute time
content for a clock second co-moving with the ruler in all inertial
frame.
[/quote]
Isn't that saying the same thing?
[quote]The second statement says tha
t the closing speed is independent of source speed
and so the closing speed is just the sum of c and the object's absolute speed
wrt the aether.
No there is no absolute speed involved.
So you have correctly stated the aether theory case.
LET is such a nice theory. What a pity there is no aether.
Assertion is not a valid arguement.
There IS one thing that worries me.
S.......................................-v<-O1.............O2->v
Here, source S is at rest in the absolute aether. O1 and O2 are moving at v in
opposite directions relative to the aether.
OK
How can they both measure the speed of light from S to be always c when its
closing speeds are c+v and c-v
From S point of view the closing speed to of light to o1 is c+v and to
o2 is c-v. However O1 and O2 will measure the light from S to be c as
follows:
c=(measured frequency)(measured wavelength).
As I pointed out to you earlier this SR arguement is bogus. The speed
of light to O1 and O2 are different as follows:
c'1=(measured higher frequency of approching light source S)(universal
wavelength of the source)
c'2=(measured lower frequency of the receding light source S)
(universal wavelength of the source)
I understand what you are saying.
Einstein's idea is that every observer carries a 'personal aether' that
determines ligh speed in his frame.
No it doesn't have to be that way if the speed of light is a constant
ratio as I shown above.
[/quote]
That's what I passed on to inertial and diaper. It's far too hard for them
though.
[quote]Ken Seto
[/quote]
Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer.. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Henry Wilson DSc... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 7:51 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 11:30:58 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
[quote]"kenseto" <kenseto at (no spam) erinet.com> wrote in message
news:147aa123-21a8-44f5-8f32-e5f3199c6efd at (no spam) p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 2, 6:14 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"kenseto" <kens... at (no spam) erinet.com> wrote in message
news:6d55739c-5050-4ae0-b416-5980b8d2baa5 at (no spam) m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 2, 3:21 am, Ilja <ilja.schmel... at (no spam) googlemail.com> wrote:
On 1 Nov., 20:51, kenseto <kens... at (no spam) erinet.com> wrote:
On Nov 1, 3:43 am, Ilja <ilja.schmel... at (no spam) googlemail.com> wrote:
False. LET claims that our rulers and clocks are distorted in such
a way that, despite the fact that true light speed would be
anisotropic,
the light speed as measured with the distorted rulers and clocks
appears isotropic.
Question:
Does the ruler contracts differently when it is not oriented in the
direction of absolute motion? If the answer is yes then it can not
give isotropy of the speed of light.
They contract only in the direction of absolute motion. In the
directions
orthogonal to absolute motion there is no Lorentz contraction.
And it can give isotropy - but of course only if combined with
time dilation and the Einstein synchronization procedure.
This is wrong....you cannot have isotropy of the speed of light if
contraction is only happened in the direction of absolute motion.
You are wrong again
This
means that your assertion that LET says that the speed of light is
isotropic in all inertial frame is also wrong.
You are wrong again
So that means that what
I claimed originally that LET says that the speed of light is
isotropic only in the rest frame of the ether is correct.
You are wrong again
Idiot runt of the SRians.
You're the one that is wrong.. not me. Calling me an idiot runt doesn't
make you any less wrong.
[/quote]
Maybe not...but at least he got this one right.
Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer.. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Inertial... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 7:52 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW at (no spam) ..> wrote in message
news:cqi1f556fhffiot4nbgp350gt6kovijtn9 at (no spam) 4ax.com...
[quote]On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 14:10:31 -0800 (PST), kenseto <kenseto at (no spam) erinet.com
wrote:
On Nov 2, 4:10 pm, HW at (no spam) ..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 06:54:04 -0800 (PST), kenseto <kens... at (no spam) erinet.com
wrote:
On Nov 1, 4:07 pm, HW at (no spam) ..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
The closing speed between any object and light is c as measured in
the
object's frame of reference. If an observer sends a light pulse
toward
an object then the closing speed between that light pulse and the
object is c+v or c-v.
I assume the object is moving at v wrt the absolute aether.
NO the object is moving at v wrt the observer. The observer assumes
that the speed of light in the ether is c. So when the observer sends
a light pulse toward the object the closing speed between the object
and the light pulse is c+v or c-v.
Let's see.
If the observer is moving at u wrt the aether then the object is moving
at u-v
wrt Aether.
No the object has its own state of absolute motion in the ether.
That's what I said
So the closing speed is c-u+v wrt the aether and therefore c+v wrt
the observer.
No the observer assumes that the speed of light in the ether is
c....therefore the closing speed for a light pulse from the observer
to the object is c+v or c-v.
That's what I said....but I just said c+v because v can be + or -.
I can understand why you don't know how to respond when someone agrees
with
you.
Very good Ken. I'm glad you got that correct without mentioning the LTs.
In that case, you will argue that the object's rods and clocks are
contracted
such that they will always MEASURE OWLS to be c...so your first
statement is
correct in aether theories...
NO...the speed of light is a ratio in all frames as follows:
Light path length of physical ruler (299,792,458 m)/the absolute time
content for a clock second co-moving with the ruler.
That is the same as I said.
You assume both the ruler and clock contract by the same factor.
You have now introduced the LTs.
No I didn't introduce the LT. I show that the speed of light is a
constant ratio of light path length of ruler over the absolute time
content for a clock second co-moving with the ruler in all inertial
frame.
Isn't that saying the same thing?
The second statement says tha
t the closing speed is independent of source speed
and so the closing speed is just the sum of c and the object's
absolute speed
wrt the aether.
No there is no absolute speed involved.
So you have correctly stated the aether theory case.
LET is such a nice theory. What a pity there is no aether.
Assertion is not a valid arguement.
There IS one thing that worries me.
S.......................................-v<-O1.............O2->v
Here, source S is at rest in the absolute aether. O1 and O2 are
moving at v in
opposite directions relative to the aether.
OK
How can they both measure the speed of light from S to be always c
when its
closing speeds are c+v and c-v
From S point of view the closing speed to of light to o1 is c+v and to
o2 is c-v. However O1 and O2 will measure the light from S to be c as
follows:
c=(measured frequency)(measured wavelength).
As I pointed out to you earlier this SR arguement is bogus. The speed
of light to O1 and O2 are different as follows:
c'1=(measured higher frequency of approching light source S)(universal
wavelength of the source)
c'2=(measured lower frequency of the receding light source S)
(universal wavelength of the source)
I understand what you are saying.
Einstein's idea is that every observer carries a 'personal aether' that
determines ligh speed in his frame.
No it doesn't have to be that way if the speed of light is a constant
ratio as I shown above.
That's what I passed on to inertial and diaper. It's far too hard for them
though.
[/quote]
I understand just fine. Ken's theory is self-contradictory. Although it
does predict relativity of simultaneity, but Ken doesn't have the brains to
actually see WHAT his theory predicts .. he just spouts the same old mantra
about light path length of rod without any concerns for its implications. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Henry Wilson DSc... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 7:52 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 11:32:49 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
[quote]"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW at (no spam) ..> wrote in message
Any third observer will get the same answer if his experiment is any good.
Nope
Any theory that doesn't get c
for the speed of light between a source and observer that are MAR is
bogus
It *is* c. The speed of light is c for EVERY observer.
That's just part of the religion you have been victim to.
I have no religion. And experiment shows the light speed is source
independent.
[/quote]
Which experiment, dopey?
[quote]You're living in your own little fantasy world of denial with
the fairies.
[/quote]
Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer.. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Henry Wilson DSc... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 7:54 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 14:14:13 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfamily at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 3, 4:05 pm, HW at (no spam) ..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 07:58:58 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 2, 6:13 pm, HW at (no spam) ..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 14:55:50 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 2, 4:26 pm, HW at (no spam) ..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
SR can give it any value simply by moving an observer.
Yes, indeed. Closing speed is a frame-dependent quantity,
no....only in SR.
No, by *definition*. Really, you should look at the definition.
Its real name, 'relative speed between two objects' is NOT frame dependent.
like many
other frame-dependent quantities, such as momentum and kinetic energy.
Not a thing wrong with that.
Naturally they are frame dependent. They depend on RELATIVE speed.
So is electric field frame-dependent. Hmm....
So let's see. You say that kinetic energy, which is dependent on
RELATIVE speed, is naturally frame dependent because of that fact.
But "relative speed between two objects", which is obviously dependent
on RELATIVE speed, is obviously NOT frame-dependent?
You really should try to THINK, Diaper.
The relative speed between any two objects, dx/dt, IS the relative speed
between their two frames. It doesn't involve any other frames and no physical
quantity can be dependent on itself....although relativists rely on such
circular logic for their entire theory.
Oh dear, Henri. Has making stuff up worked for you up to this point?
If not, why do you keep doing it?
An object's KE and P are directly linked to its speed relative to whichever
frame the measurement applies....so naturally it IS frame dependent.
But relative speed is not linked to relative speed, and therefore
relative speed is frame independent.
Mphph... mmmhumm....mmMWAHAHAHAHAHAHahahahaha.... heh heh... sorry.
I think it's time you took a course in basic physics, Diaper.
Gladly. What textbook would you recommend I use that supports what
you've just said?
Or is your suggestion just a boondoggle like EVERY SINGLE THING YOU'VE
EVER SAID?
[/quote]
Just read the definition of a FoR.
Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer.. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Inertial... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 7:57 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW at (no spam) ..> wrote in message
news:uuj1f5t4le1847nubu3gg1r824p9v48isu at (no spam) 4ax.com...
[quote]On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 11:30:58 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"kenseto" <kenseto at (no spam) erinet.com> wrote in message
news:147aa123-21a8-44f5-8f32-e5f3199c6efd at (no spam) p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 2, 6:14 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"kenseto" <kens... at (no spam) erinet.com> wrote in message
news:6d55739c-5050-4ae0-b416-5980b8d2baa5 at (no spam) m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 2, 3:21 am, Ilja <ilja.schmel... at (no spam) googlemail.com> wrote:
On 1 Nov., 20:51, kenseto <kens... at (no spam) erinet.com> wrote:
On Nov 1, 3:43 am, Ilja <ilja.schmel... at (no spam) googlemail.com> wrote:
False. LET claims that our rulers and clocks are distorted in
such
a way that, despite the fact that true light speed would be
anisotropic,
the light speed as measured with the distorted rulers and clocks
appears isotropic.
Question:
Does the ruler contracts differently when it is not oriented in
the
direction of absolute motion? If the answer is yes then it can not
give isotropy of the speed of light.
They contract only in the direction of absolute motion. In the
directions
orthogonal to absolute motion there is no Lorentz contraction.
And it can give isotropy - but of course only if combined with
time dilation and the Einstein synchronization procedure.
This is wrong....you cannot have isotropy of the speed of light if
contraction is only happened in the direction of absolute motion.
You are wrong again
This
means that your assertion that LET says that the speed of light is
isotropic in all inertial frame is also wrong.
You are wrong again
So that means that what
I claimed originally that LET says that the speed of light is
isotropic only in the rest frame of the ether is correct.
You are wrong again
Idiot runt of the SRians.
You're the one that is wrong.. not me. Calling me an idiot runt doesn't
make you any less wrong.
Maybe not...but at least he got this one right.
[/quote]
Nope. You, he, and Androcles are uneducated buffoons who couldn't
understand physics if your life depended on it. But at least you give those
of us who DO understand it something to laugh about. This thread has been
particularly amusing, watching you trying to weasel out of your mistakes. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Androcles... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 8:05 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW at (no spam) ..> wrote in message
news:kki1f5hj79q93h4cjt01ktirniuele8lc9 at (no spam) 4ax.com...
[quote]On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 21:12:50 -0000, "Androcles"
Headmaster at (no spam) Hogwarts.physics_p
wrote:
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW at (no spam) ..> wrote in message
news:om41f51g9nmfk55uu5sb0t8a0dc7nhimub at (no spam) 4ax.com...
Light slows as it travels...hence the redshift.
WRONG! Momentum is a conserved quantity.
No redshift without galaxies to look at. In any galaxy 100% of stars are
sending c-v slow light 85% of the time, and sending c+v fast light the
rest
of the time.
I'm not disputing those figures...Where did you get them?
[/quote]
It's only approximate to convey the idea, Wilson-Sekerin time
dilation increases as a function of increasing distance as the graph
clearly shows. I made them up. What you should do is produce
an equation. It's your baby, you nuture it. If you want me to do it
for you then I get all the credit. Every star in the galaxy sends
light at c+v as it rotates around the galactic centre, so every star
has its own graph, a la Doolin's star. But all the graphs have to be
superimposed, and they are all phase shifted with respect to each
other. The end result is a redshift for the entire galaxy that increases
as the distance to the galaxy increases. This wipes out any unifuckation
idea or "tired light" idea you may have, but is completely consistent
with apparent time dilation of the Wilson-Sekerin hypothesis. You
don't realise just how important that idea is or you would not be
babbling about unifuckation or light slowing down.
Every star in a galaxy HAS to have an apparent time dilation -
except for galaxies seen face-on.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070910.html
The more edge-on and further away the galaxy is, the redder it is.
The more face on or nearer it is, the bluer (or whiter) is appears.
[quote]
The further away the galaxy is, the more the apparent
Wilson/Sekerin-time dilates for MOST of the galactic period...
hence the redshift.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doolin'sStar.GIF
The cause of increasing redshift with distance was discovered by
Androcles using the discovery of Wilson-Sekerin.
Besides, it isn't redshift alone that matters, anything moving away
will cause that. It is redshift as a function of distance.
[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PD... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 4:39 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 3, 6:54 pm, HW at (no spam) ..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
[quote]On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 14:14:13 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 3, 4:05 pm, HW at (no spam) ..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 07:58:58 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 2, 6:13 pm, HW at (no spam) ..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 14:55:50 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 2, 4:26 pm, HW at (no spam) ..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
SR can give it any value simply by moving an observer.
Yes, indeed. Closing speed is a frame-dependent quantity,
no....only in SR.
No, by *definition*. Really, you should look at the definition.
Its real name, 'relative speed between two objects' is NOT frame dependent.
like many
other frame-dependent quantities, such as momentum and kinetic energy.
Not a thing wrong with that.
Naturally they are frame dependent. They depend on RELATIVE speed.
So is electric field frame-dependent. Hmm....
So let's see. You say that kinetic energy, which is dependent on
RELATIVE speed, is naturally frame dependent because of that fact.
But "relative speed between two objects", which is obviously dependent
on RELATIVE speed, is obviously NOT frame-dependent?
You really should try to THINK, Diaper.
The relative speed between any two objects, dx/dt, IS the relative speed
between their two frames. It doesn't involve any other frames and no physical
quantity can be dependent on itself....although relativists rely on such
circular logic for their entire theory.
Oh dear, Henri. Has making stuff up worked for you up to this point?
If not, why do you keep doing it?
An object's KE and P are directly linked to its speed relative to whichever
frame the measurement applies....so naturally it IS frame dependent..
But relative speed is not linked to relative speed, and therefore
relative speed is frame independent.
Mphph... mmmhumm....mmMWAHAHAHAHAHAHahahahaha.... heh heh... sorry.
I think it's time you took a course in basic physics, Diaper.
Gladly. What textbook would you recommend I use that supports what
you've just said?
Or is your suggestion just a boondoggle like EVERY SINGLE THING YOU'VE
EVER SAID?
Just read the definition of a FoR.
[/quote]
OK, what reference do you recommend for this definition, and where
will it tell me that relative speed and/or closing speed is frame-
independent? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Henry Wilson DSc... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 4:53 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 01:05:42 -0000, "Androcles" <Headmaster at (no spam) Hogwarts.physics_p>
wrote:
[quote]
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW at (no spam) ..> wrote in message
news:kki1f5hj79q93h4cjt01ktirniuele8lc9 at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 21:12:50 -0000, "Androcles"
WRONG! Momentum is a conserved quantity.
No redshift without galaxies to look at. In any galaxy 100% of stars are
sending c-v slow light 85% of the time, and sending c+v fast light the
rest
of the time.
I'm not disputing those figures...Where did you get them?
It's only approximate to convey the idea, Wilson-Sekerin time
dilation increases as a function of increasing distance as the graph
clearly shows. I made them up. What you should do is produce
an equation. It's your baby, you nuture it. If you want me to do it
for you then I get all the credit. Every star in the galaxy sends
light at c+v as it rotates around the galactic centre, so every star
has its own graph, a la Doolin's star. But all the graphs have to be
superimposed, and they are all phase shifted with respect to each
other. The end result is a redshift for the entire galaxy that increases
as the distance to the galaxy increases.
[/quote]
Now wait a minute.
Time compression occurs only for half the orbit. For the other half the
opposite happens. I don't see why there is an overall red shift. You have
thought about this longer that I have. Please elaborate. You might have a good
idea here.
I have always pointed out that ALL light from a galaxy is redshifted because it
slows as it escapes, even if tit has to pass through the centre. It doesn't
speed up as much when it reaches Earth because we lie on the outskirts of the
Milky Way.
I've even written a program that does the calculations...and since GR has the
same equation as BaTh I don't see how the relativists can criticize.
..
[quote]This wipes out any unifuckation
idea or "tired light" idea you may have, but is completely consistent
with apparent time dilation of the Wilson-Sekerin hypothesis. You
don't realise just how important that idea is or you would not be
babbling about unifuckation or light slowing down.
Every star in a galaxy HAS to have an apparent time dilation -
except for galaxies seen face-on.
[/quote]
But half experience the opposite effect.
[quote]http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070910.html
The more edge-on and further away the galaxy is, the redder it is.
The more face on or nearer it is, the bluer (or whiter) is appears.
The further away the galaxy is, the more the apparent
Wilson/Sekerin-time dilates for MOST of the galactic period...
hence the redshift.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doolin'sStar.GIF
The cause of increasing redshift with distance was discovered by
Androcles using the discovery of Wilson-Sekerin.
Besides, it isn't redshift alone that matters, anything moving away
will cause that. It is redshift as a function of distance.
[/quote]
Tired light is the main contributor.
Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer.. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Androcles... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 7:20 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW at (no spam) ..> wrote in message
news:4vi2f5dd1s07nrr34nshukm3s3jcu740ni at (no spam) 4ax.com...
[quote]On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 01:05:42 -0000, "Androcles"
Headmaster at (no spam) Hogwarts.physics_p
wrote:
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW at (no spam) ..> wrote in message
news:kki1f5hj79q93h4cjt01ktirniuele8lc9 at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 21:12:50 -0000, "Androcles"
WRONG! Momentum is a conserved quantity.
No redshift without galaxies to look at. In any galaxy 100% of stars are
sending c-v slow light 85% of the time, and sending c+v fast light the
rest
of the time.
I'm not disputing those figures...Where did you get them?
It's only approximate to convey the idea, Wilson-Sekerin time
dilation increases as a function of increasing distance as the graph
clearly shows. I made them up. What you should do is produce
an equation. It's your baby, you nuture it. If you want me to do it
for you then I get all the credit. Every star in the galaxy sends
light at c+v as it rotates around the galactic centre, so every star
has its own graph, a la Doolin's star. But all the graphs have to be
superimposed, and they are all phase shifted with respect to each
other. The end result is a redshift for the entire galaxy that increases
as the distance to the galaxy increases.
Now wait a minute.
Time compression occurs only for half the orbit. For the other half the
opposite happens. I don't see why there is an overall red shift. You have
thought about this longer that I have. Please elaborate. You might have a
good
idea here.
Now YOU wait a minute. Look at the graph.[/quote]
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doolin'sStar.GIF
Time compression occurs for only a fraction of the PERIOD.
The rest of the period is time-expanded. The star APPEARS
to drag its arse for half the orbit and races around the other half,
but you are not going to be around for 100,000 years to see it
happen.
So if the star is apparently dragging for 85% of the period (half
the orbit) and racing for 15% of the period (the other half of the
orbit) you'll see redshift for 85% of the time, for that star.
And of course for all of them, except that those nearer to the
centre really are travelling faster. So a star that is really travelling
faster near the centre will have an even greater red/blue shift than
one at the rim and hence more time compression, making it appear
to slow down. Since that is what is seen, dork matter was invented
by the dorks to explain it.
[quote]I have always pointed out that ALL light from a galaxy is redshifted
because it
slows as it escapes, even if tit has to pass through the centre.
[/quote]
Yes, but I'm saying that 50% of the light is redshifted for 85% of the
period,
and 50% is blueshifted for 15% of the period, the 85% and 15% being when
it reaches the observer. It would still be 50:50 at the source. So 85%
of the stars we see in the galaxy are redshifted and that would lead
Edwin Hubble to conclude the galaxy as a whole was moving away.
The blue shifted stars are there, but their light is swamped by the
redshifted
stars.
[quote]It doesn't
speed up as much when it reaches Earth because we lie on the outskirts of
the
Milky Way.
I've even written a program that does the calculations...and since GR has
the
same equation as BaTh I don't see how the relativists can criticize.
.
[/quote]
Forget the relativists, they are nothing but a pain in the arse.
Light doesn't change speed at all, it has no reason to.
Suppose the galaxy were at the right distance so that every star in it
was a recurrent nova like V 1493 Aql. As each star comes around
it appears very bright, then fades to dim for the rest of the time.
If they ALL did it, we'd see one bright star all of the time and not
see a galaxy at all. It would look like a quasar.
[quote]
This wipes out any unifuckation
idea or "tired light" idea you may have, but is completely consistent
with apparent time dilation of the Wilson-Sekerin hypothesis. You
don't realise just how important that idea is or you would not be
babbling about unifuckation or light slowing down.
Every star in a galaxy HAS to have an apparent time dilation -
except for galaxies seen face-on.
But half experience the opposite effect.
[/quote]
Yes, but only for a fraction of the period. You can't have your
cake and eat it too. If apparent time is compressed for half
the orbit is has to be compressed for a fraction of the period
and expanded for the remainder. If you squeeze all the light
into a fraction of the period the star will appear bright for
that fraction and dim for the rest of the period. That happens
when the blueshifted light is arriving and the rest of the time
we see the red-shifted light. Just look again at the graph.
[quote]
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070910.html
The more edge-on and further away the galaxy is, the redder it is.
The more face on or nearer it is, the bluer (or whiter) is appears.
The further away the galaxy is, the more the apparent
Wilson/Sekerin-time dilates for MOST of the galactic period...
hence the redshift.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doolin'sStar.GIF
The cause of increasing redshift with distance was discovered by
Androcles using the discovery of Wilson-Sekerin.
Besides, it isn't redshift alone that matters, anything moving away
will cause that. It is redshift as a function of distance.
Tired light is the main contributor.
[/quote]
I used to support tired light, but I was never comfortable with it
because it lacks a mechanism, a cause. One may as well say the
universe expands away from a Big Bang for all the good it does.
A universe that stretches forever in all directions is a steady state
universe that has always existed and always will. It's only the little
minds that cannot grasp it. And no, I don't have all the answers
but nobody else does either. What I do know is the laws of
physics have to be obeyed and both tired light and Big Bang
don't apply. Tired light is only for those that can't think of anything
else, but it's magic and that won't do for a scientist. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PD... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 12:28 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 4, 4:21 pm, HW at (no spam) ..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
[quote]On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 06:39:34 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 3, 6:54 pm, HW at (no spam) ..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 14:14:13 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 3, 4:05 pm, HW at (no spam) ..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
Mphph... mmmhumm....mmMWAHAHAHAHAHAHahahahaha.... heh heh... sorry..
I think it's time you took a course in basic physics, Diaper.
Gladly. What textbook would you recommend I use that supports what
you've just said?
Or is your suggestion just a boondoggle like EVERY SINGLE THING YOU'VE
EVER SAID?
Just read the definition of a FoR.
OK, what reference do you recommend for this definition, and where
will it tell me that relative speed and/or closing speed is frame-
independent?
You know what amuses me most Diaper?
Nothing can exceed light speed unless it is 'closing speed'.
[/quote]
Well, this is like saying that no 4-legged animals can have more than
four legs, except 6-legged animals.
Nothing can exceed a *relative* speed of c. A closing speed, defined
as it is, must be less than or equal to 2c. This is *immediately*
obvious from its definition, if you'd ever bother to take note of what
the definition actually is.
I don't know why this seems so impenetrable to you.
PD |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PD... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 1:10 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 4, 4:46 pm, HW at (no spam) ..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
[quote]On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 09:38:57 +1100, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW at (no spam) ..> wrote in message
news:rgv3f5durejr5kvj4gviava0dk8sd2mbcv at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 06:39:34 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:
On Nov 3, 6:54 pm, HW at (no spam) ..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 14:14:13 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:
On Nov 3, 4:05 pm, HW at (no spam) ..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
Mphph... mmmhumm....mmMWAHAHAHAHAHAHahahahaha.... heh heh... sorry.
I think it's time you took a course in basic physics, Diaper.
Gladly. What textbook would you recommend I use that supports what
you've just said?
Or is your suggestion just a boondoggle like EVERY SINGLE THING YOU'VE
EVER SAID?
Just read the definition of a FoR.
OK, what reference do you recommend for this definition, and where
will it tell me that relative speed and/or closing speed is frame-
independent?
You know what amuses me most Diaper?
Your own idiocy?
Nothing can exceed light speed unless it is 'closing speed'.
Yeup .. its your own idiocy.
What about the gamma term, sqrt(c+v)(c-v)
Is c+v a speed greater than c?
Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
[/quote]
Henri, if I make a sum (c + c + c + c + 2348c + 19.5/c), this is a
number that has units of speed. Does that make it the measurable speed
of ANYTHING?
PD |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Henry Wilson DSc... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 5:19 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 12:20:02 -0000, "Androcles" <Headmaster at (no spam) Hogwarts.physics_p>
wrote:
[quote]
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW at (no spam) ..> wrote in message
news:4vi2f5dd1s07nrr34nshukm3s3jcu740ni at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 01:05:42 -0000, "Androcles"
Now wait a minute.
Time compression occurs only for half the orbit. For the other half the
opposite happens. I don't see why there is an overall red shift. You have
thought about this longer that I have. Please elaborate. You might have a
good
idea here.
Now YOU wait a minute. Look at the graph.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doolin'sStar.GIF
Time compression occurs for only a fraction of the PERIOD.
The rest of the period is time-expanded. The star APPEARS
to drag its arse for half the orbit and races around the other half,
but you are not going to be around for 100,000 years to see it
happen.
So if the star is apparently dragging for 85% of the period (half
the orbit) and racing for 15% of the period (the other half of the
orbit) you'll see redshift for 85% of the time, for that star.
[/quote]
Hmmmm
That sounds good but there's a problem that i can't quite solve yet.
For half the orbit (the 'concave' bit), time is compressed and the other half
expanded.
But in each half the star is moving towards us for half the time and moving
away for the other half. So even though the star is 'dragging' for half the
time, its light, which should be dimmer, is still equally red and blue shifted
when it arrives.
[quote]And of course for all of them, except that those nearer to the
centre really are travelling faster. So a star that is really travelling
faster near the centre will have an even greater red/blue shift than
one at the rim and hence more time compression, making it appear
to slow down. Since that is what is seen, dork matter was invented
by the dorks to explain it.
[/quote]
I'll think about it.
[quote]I have always pointed out that ALL light from a galaxy is redshifted
because it
slows as it escapes, even if tit has to pass through the centre.
Yes, but I'm saying that 50% of the light is redshifted for 85% of the
period,
and 50% is blueshifted for 15% of the period, the 85% and 15% being when
it reaches the observer. It would still be 50:50 at the source.
[/quote]
I know exactly what you are saying but something doesn't add up....but OK, I
think I've just got it.
What I said above applies to conventional VDoppler. Time compression (or
ADoppler), which is what you are referring to, far outweighs the VDoppler
effect...so yes this now makes sense.
Another interesting point is that the observed red and blueshifts that
astronomers use for all their analyses are not simple VDoppler effects...they
are 90 deg different in phase. ...so astronomers are creating even more
bullshit theories to explain their willusions.
[quote]So 85%
of the stars we see in the galaxy are redshifted and that would lead
Edwin Hubble to conclude the galaxy as a whole was moving away.
The blue shifted stars are there, but their light is swamped by the
redshifted
stars.
[/quote]
Yes.
[quote]It doesn't
speed up as much when it reaches Earth because we lie on the outskirts of
the
Milky Way.
I've even written a program that does the calculations...and since GR has
the
same equation as BaTh I don't see how the relativists can criticize.
.
Forget the relativists, they are nothing but a pain in the arse.
[/quote]
We certainly agree on that.
[quote]Light doesn't change speed at all, it has no reason to.
Suppose the galaxy were at the right distance so that every star in it
was a recurrent nova like V 1493 Aql. As each star comes around
it appears very bright, then fades to dim for the rest of the time.
If they ALL did it, we'd see one bright star all of the time and not
see a galaxy at all. It would look like a quasar.
This wipes out any unifuckation
idea or "tired light" idea you may have, but is completely consistent
with apparent time dilation of the Wilson-Sekerin hypothesis. You
don't realise just how important that idea is or you would not be
babbling about unifuckation or light slowing down.
Every star in a galaxy HAS to have an apparent time dilation -
except for galaxies seen face-on.
But half experience the opposite effect.
Yes, but only for a fraction of the period. You can't have your
cake and eat it too. If apparent time is compressed for half
the orbit is has to be compressed for a fraction of the period
and expanded for the remainder. If you squeeze all the light
into a fraction of the period the star will appear bright for
that fraction and dim for the rest of the period. That happens
when the blueshifted light is arriving and the rest of the time
we see the red-shifted light. Just look again at the graph.
[/quote]
Yes OK, I see the answer. ADoppler far exceeds the conventional VDoppler
shifts.
I agree that time compression might be able to explain the distance anomaly and
obviate the need for unification....but I haven't really looked into it yet.
It might also explain why De Sitter's findings were wrong.
[quote]http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070910.html
The more edge-on and further away the galaxy is, the redder it is.
The more face on or nearer it is, the bluer (or whiter) is appears.
The further away the galaxy is, the more the apparent
Wilson/Sekerin-time dilates for MOST of the galactic period...
hence the redshift.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doolin'sStar.GIF
The cause of increasing redshift with distance was discovered by
Androcles using the discovery of Wilson-Sekerin.
Besides, it isn't redshift alone that matters, anything moving away
will cause that. It is redshift as a function of distance.
Tired light is the main contributor.
I used to support tired light, but I was never comfortable with it
because it lacks a mechanism, a cause. One may as well say the
universe expands away from a Big Bang for all the good it does.
[/quote]
I would be very surprised if light DID NOT slow down as it travels for billion
of years....only slightly though....because distant images are quite sharp.
[quote]A universe that stretches forever in all directions is a steady state
universe that has always existed and always will. It's only the little
minds that cannot grasp it. And no, I don't have all the answers
but nobody else does either. What I do know is the laws of
physics have to be obeyed and both tired light and Big Bang
don't apply. Tired light is only for those that can't think of anything
else, but it's magic and that won't do for a scientist.
[/quote]
I wouldn't rule out tired light. I believe the cosmic redshift is due to more
than one factor.
Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer.. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Henry Wilson DSc... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 5:21 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 06:39:34 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfamily at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 3, 6:54 pm, HW at (no spam) ..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 14:14:13 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 3, 4:05 pm, HW at (no spam) ..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
Mphph... mmmhumm....mmMWAHAHAHAHAHAHahahahaha.... heh heh... sorry.
I think it's time you took a course in basic physics, Diaper.
Gladly. What textbook would you recommend I use that supports what
you've just said?
Or is your suggestion just a boondoggle like EVERY SINGLE THING YOU'VE
EVER SAID?
Just read the definition of a FoR.
OK, what reference do you recommend for this definition, and where
will it tell me that relative speed and/or closing speed is frame-
independent?
[/quote]
You know what amuses me most Diaper?
Nothing can exceed light speed unless it is 'closing speed'.
Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer.. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Nov 27, 2009 7:14 pm
|
|