| |
 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Physics Forum » Does total speed of light in vacuum change in a gravity fiel |
|
Page 2 of 2 Goto page Previous 1, 2 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Dirk Van de moortel |
 Posted: Tue Feb 22, 2005 4:17 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:3t6n11d282kb8muhm60v11qt0aist67b3v@4ax.com...
[quote:90e7095627]On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 10:11:53 +0100, "Dirk Van de moortel"
dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
jgreen@seol.net.au> wrote in message news:1108685289.582397.124740@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Jim Greenfield" <jgreen@seol.net.au> wrote in message
news:e7b5cc5d.0502161654.3c60d4ec@posting.google.com...
[snip]
The mistakes in Relativity stem from the INTERPRETATION of what
occurs (and WHY)
The mistakes in what *you* think relativity is, stem from
*your* imbecile misinterpreation of it. I am not surpised.
Relativity says c doesn't alter, but length and time DO.
Relativity says that *measurements* of lengths and time
intervals depend on the relative velocity of the observer
and the observed.
Relativity says that you can bend spoons just by looking at them whilst moving
away!
Yes! Right into the domain of anyone foolish enough to always believe
"that seeing is believing".
If the observer OR observed are moving ref
each other, an intelligent observer understands that his measurement
will be INCORRECT, due to light velocity not being infinite. That
observer (me) corrects his measurement for delays in information
transfer, and ALWAYS arrives at the correct, unalterring length (for
distance AND time).
As you shun this, so should you for trigonometry, which is but a system
for getting the CORRECT value for a length, which may APPEAR otherwise.
This has been told to you many times before, but since you
seem to be listening now, I will repeat it once more:
The action of observing the time of an event is not measured
as the time that the signal reaches the observer, but as the
average of the times of sending out a signal and receiving the
echo.
I send a signal at my clock time t1. The signal hits a target and
gets reflected. The echo reaches me at my clock time t2.
Then I define the time of the reflection event to be (t1+t2)/2.
Likewise the distance of the reflection event is then defined
as c*(t2-t1)/2.
This way of working assumes that the speed of the signal is
the same in both directions, which is what every experiment
thus far seems to confirm.
With source and mirror mutually at rest, that is correct (in flat gravity)
[/quote:90e7095627]
"flat gravity" - good one :-)
Get this straight. You have nothing to mutter about the
"correctness" of this. I have given the *definitions* of measuring
time and distance of an event. Definitions are not open for debate.
Of course they work perfectly for source and mirror mutually
at rest - *even* you seem to understand that. But they work just
as perfectly when source and observer are not at rest with
respect to each other, PROVIDED you keep in mind that the
measured distance c*(t2-t1)/2 you get this way, is the distance,
not at time t1 or t2, but at the calculated time (t1+t2)/2.
[quote:90e7095627]Light speed is c wrt its source and therefore also c wrt the mirror.
In his innocence, Einstein correctly defined a way of establishing absolute
simultaneity and length with his clock synch definition.
This is in accordance with the BaT and as you say " is what every experiment
thus far seems to confirm".
Note: no experiment has confirmed this for a moving mirror.
[/quote:90e7095627]
Of course these experiments have been done. Ignoring them
is like Holocaust negationism.
By the way, note: no experiment has confirmed that *you*
die when we drop you from a tower.
Dirk Vdm |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Dirk Van de moortel |
| Posted: Sat Feb 26, 2005 6:32 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:a9r121525kkc5fcmavvikftpcik4ufflkb@4ax.com...
[quote:46a6b14d76]On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 21:17:31 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
[/quote:46a6b14d76]
[snip]
[quote:46a6b14d76]Get this straight. You have nothing to mutter about the
"correctness" of this. I have given the *definitions* of measuring
time and distance of an event. Definitions are not open for debate.
Of course they work perfectly for source and mirror mutually
at rest - *even* you seem to understand that. But they work just
as perfectly when source and observer are not at rest with
respect to each other, PROVIDED you keep in mind that the
measured distance c*(t2-t1)/2 you get this way, is the distance,
not at time t1 or t2, but at the calculated time (t1+t2)/2.
That's an aether argument. There is NO aether...didn't you know?
[/quote:46a6b14d76]
I haven't been using any kind of argument. I am trying
to help you understand how the human population of this
planet defines things in order to get some work done.
That includes engineering work, you know, the kind of
work it takes to design the radar that measures the
speed of your car.
It is amazing how religious fanatics tend to confuse
definitions with arguments.
Dirk Vdm |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2005 8:11 pm |
|
|
|
|
[quote:80fea8b105]His focus is on nonsymmetrical connections, you
might recall that from Einstein's Non-symmetric
Field Theory, (see AE's Meaning of Relativity).
Myself, I use nonsymmetrical metrics, and
symmetrical connections.
[/quote:80fea8b105]
Connections are neither "symmetrical" nor "non-symmetrical". That's
not an attribute of connections, but of frame fields (i.e., holonomy);
and it is almost always of *far greater* convenience to render a
connection in terms of a non-holonomic frame.
The relevant property for connections is whether they have torsion or
not. They will, generally, have torsion in the presence of spin 1/2
fields, since torsion is what couples to spin. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Nov 08, 2009 11:17 am
|
|