 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Physics Forum » Does total speed of light in vacuum change in a gravity fiel |
|
Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Uncle Al |
 Posted: Tue Feb 15, 2005 3:34 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Ken S. Tucker |
| Posted: Tue Feb 15, 2005 4:16 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Al et al
I thought Sarfatti's post about Shapiro was good,
especially Wheeler's opinion.
Incidentally, in your (Al's) article "Novel EP tests"
I noted in Table IX you've excluded J.W.Moffat's
Nonsymmtrical Gravitational Theory aka NGT,
have you considered it?
Ken |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Uncle Al |
| Posted: Tue Feb 15, 2005 4:52 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
[quote:bd0877034e]
Al et al
I thought Sarfatti's post about Shapiro was good,
especially Wheeler's opinion.
Incidentally, in your (Al's) article "Novel EP tests"
I noted in Table IX you've excluded J.W.Moffat's
Nonsymmtrical Gravitational Theory aka NGT,
have you considered it?
Ken
[/quote:bd0877034e]
Theories witha red background ar falsified. A theory of gravitation
either contains the Equivalence Principle or it does not. First we do
the last exclusionary set of experiments, then pronounce on
mathematics.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato |
| Posted: Tue Feb 15, 2005 6:12 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<MjsQd.4039$lz5.2811@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net>...
[quote:46bdc43b89]On Feb 14, 2005, at 7:04 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On Feb 14, 2005, at 2:29 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
(SKIP)[/quote:46bdc43b89]
Albert Einstein wrote (1916):
"In the second place our result shows that, according to the general
theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of
light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental
assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have
already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A
curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of
propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as
a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it
the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in
reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special
theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity: its
results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences
of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light)".
RVHG |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Ken S. Tucker |
| Posted: Tue Feb 15, 2005 6:47 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Uncle Al wrote:
[quote:5035bd828b]"Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
Al et al
I thought Sarfatti's post about Shapiro was good,
especially Wheeler's opinion.
Incidentally, in your (Al's) article "Novel EP tests"
I noted in Table IX you've excluded J.W.Moffat's
Nonsymmtrical Gravitational Theory aka NGT,
have you considered it?
Ken
Theories witha red background ar falsified. A theory of gravitation
either contains the Equivalence Principle or it does not. First we
do
the last exclusionary set of experiments, then pronounce on
mathematics.
[/quote:5035bd828b]
Well Moffat's NGT, ((had dinner with him and wife,
but drank too much)), has IIRC theories that are
not entirely in accord with PoE. Also being non-
symmetrical, perhaps like parity, it may relate.
Recently, Moffat published an arXiv regarding
the application of NGT to Pioneer X anomally.
You may want to email him, very nice guy.
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.
Good Luck
Ken S. Tucker
[quote:5035bd828b]
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf[/quote:5035bd828b] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jim Greenfield |
| Posted: Wed Feb 16, 2005 12:15 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
valls@icmf.inf.cu (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) wrote in message news:<33d06fe2.0502151512.44a061d@posting.google.com>...
[quote:0761e208e5]Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<MjsQd.4039$lz5.2811@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net>...
On Feb 14, 2005, at 7:04 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On Feb 14, 2005, at 2:29 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
(SKIP)
Albert Einstein wrote (1916):
"In the second place our result shows that, according to the general
theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of
light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental
assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have
already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A
curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of
propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as
a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it
the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in
reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special
theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity: its
results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences
of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light)".
RVHG
[/quote:0761e208e5]
And as been clearly shown by data when observing light passing close
to the sun, gravity DOES influence light, so we can all celebrate 100
years of SR by chucking it in the bin!
Jim G
c'=c+v |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Dirk Van de moortel |
| Posted: Wed Feb 16, 2005 5:38 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Jim Greenfield" <jgreen@seol.net.au> wrote in message news:e7b5cc5d.0502152115.16f95f2b@posting.google.com...
[quote:d0e690885b]valls@icmf.inf.cu (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) wrote in message news:<33d06fe2.0502151512.44a061d@posting.google.com>...
Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<MjsQd.4039$lz5.2811@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net>...
On Feb 14, 2005, at 7:04 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On Feb 14, 2005, at 2:29 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
(SKIP)
Albert Einstein wrote (1916):
"In the second place our result shows that, according to the general
theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of
light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental
assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have
already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A
curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of
propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as
a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it
the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in
reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special
theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity: its
results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences
of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light)".
RVHG
And as been clearly shown by data when observing light passing close
to the sun, gravity DOES influence light, so we can all celebrate 100
years of SR by chucking it in the bin!
Jim G
c'=c+v
[/quote:d0e690885b]
SR's domain of exact applicability is in the absence of
gravitation. When gravitational influences are "sufficiently
small", SR is applicable as an excellent approximation.
This is -for instance- the case in particle accelerators where
the flight path lengths and times of the particles are small
enough so that gravitational influences are not detectable.
In this domain SR does a remarkable job and it accurately
describies everything we observe, and precisely predictis the
results of our experiments. If you throw SR in the bin, you
cannot design particle accelerators anymore. If you use your
c' = c+v to design an accelerator, it does not work, whether
you like it or not. If you demand to get a CAT scan on a
machine that is designed according to your c' = c+v, then
there will be no diagnose, because the machine will not work.
So I count on you that, when you think you have a tumor
and the doctor proposes a brain scan, you will get it over
with and chuck yourself in the bin right away. Thanks.
Dirk Vdm |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato |
| Posted: Wed Feb 16, 2005 12:25 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
jgreen@seol.net.au (Jim Greenfield) wrote in message news:<e7b5cc5d.0502152115.16f95f2b@posting.google.com>...
[quote:1f6f364e72]valls@icmf.inf.cu (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) wrote in message news:<33d06fe2.0502151512.44a061d@posting.google.com>...
Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<MjsQd.4039$lz5.2811@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net>...
On Feb 14, 2005, at 7:04 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On Feb 14, 2005, at 2:29 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
(SKIP)
Albert Einstein wrote (1916):
"In the second place our result shows that, according to the general
theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of
light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental
assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have
already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A
curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of
propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as
a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it
the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in
reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special
theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity: its
results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences
of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light)".
RVHG
And as been clearly shown by data when observing light passing close
to the sun, gravity DOES influence light, so we can all celebrate 100
years of SR by chucking it in the bin!
Jim G
c'=c+v
[/quote:1f6f364e72]
You make very strange deductions. If a gravity field is present there
exist no vacuum and light velocity can be less than the maximal vacuum
value c without any violation of SR rules.
From where do you take your "c'=c+v"? I will suppose you are not one
who confuse the ordinary algebraic addition vector operation with the
relativistic composition of velocities rule(in his first Jun30-1905
relativity paper Einstein used the first many times before deriving
the second). Do you knew that if you have two moving entities A and B
with respective velocities Va and Vb in some inertial frame, you can
obtain their relative velocity (or closing velocity) Vab=Va-Vb with
ordinary vector subtraction without violating any SR rule? (light rays
included!). Do you knew that Vab is invariant in Newtonian mechanics,
but not in the relativistic one?
RVHG |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jim Greenfield |
| Posted: Wed Feb 16, 2005 7:54 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<421322e3$1@usenet01.boi.hp.com>...
[quote:78b93a8b0d]"Jim Greenfield" <jgreen@seol.net.au> wrote in message news:e7b5cc5d.0502152115.16f95f2b@posting.google.com...
valls@icmf.inf.cu (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) wrote in message news:<33d06fe2.0502151512.44a061d@posting.google.com>...
Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<MjsQd.4039$lz5.2811@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net>...
On Feb 14, 2005, at 7:04 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On Feb 14, 2005, at 2:29 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
(SKIP)
Albert Einstein wrote (1916):
"In the second place our result shows that, according to the general
theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of
light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental
assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have
already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A
curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of
propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as
a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it
the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in
reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special
theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity: its
results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences
of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light)".
RVHG
And as been clearly shown by data when observing light passing close
to the sun, gravity DOES influence light, so we can all celebrate 100
years of SR by chucking it in the bin!
Jim G
c'=c+v
SR's domain of exact applicability is in the absence of
gravitation. When gravitational influences are "sufficiently
small", SR is applicable as an excellent approximation.
This is -for instance- the case in particle accelerators where
the flight path lengths and times of the particles are small
enough so that gravitational influences are not detectable.
In this domain SR does a remarkable job and it accurately
describies everything we observe, and precisely predictis the
results of our experiments. If you throw SR in the bin, you
cannot design particle accelerators anymore. If you use your
c' = c+v to design an accelerator, it does not work, whether
you like it or not. If you demand to get a CAT scan on a
machine that is designed according to your c' = c+v, then
there will be no diagnose, because the machine will not work.
So I count on you that, when you think you have a tumor
and the doctor proposes a brain scan, you will get it over
with and chuck yourself in the bin right away. Thanks.
Dirk Vdm
[/quote:78b93a8b0d]
They will all work perfectly well- even (especially) the GPS!
The mistakes in Relativity stem from the INTERPRETATION of what occurs
(and WHY)
Relativity says c doesn't alter, but length and time DO. This means
that the result of something can be predicted using the WRONG
assumptions.
And remember well, that in SR at all times, TWO wrong assumptions are
in use- the rubber ruler AND the rubber second. If c'=c+v is used, the
correct results are perdicted, without resorting to magical bull.
Jim G
c'=c+v
PS: In your case, the tumour must be effecting that part of the brain
which produces imaginary scenarios-----such as light knowing how fast
its source is travelling ref another source, and emitts itself
accordingly to match the others velocity. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jim Greenfield |
| Posted: Wed Feb 16, 2005 8:03 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
valls@icmf.inf.cu (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) wrote in message news:<33d06fe2.0502160925.5a623ec7@posting.google.com>...
[quote:b910206afd]jgreen@seol.net.au (Jim Greenfield) wrote in message news:<e7b5cc5d.0502152115.16f95f2b@posting.google.com>...
valls@icmf.inf.cu (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) wrote in message news:<33d06fe2.0502151512.44a061d@posting.google.com>...
Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<MjsQd.4039$lz5.2811@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net>...
On Feb 14, 2005, at 7:04 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On Feb 14, 2005, at 2:29 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
(SKIP)
Albert Einstein wrote (1916):
"In the second place our result shows that, according to the general
theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of
light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental
assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have
already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A
curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of
propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as
a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it
the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in
reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special
theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity: its
results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences
of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light)".
RVHG
And as been clearly shown by data when observing light passing close
to the sun, gravity DOES influence light, so we can all celebrate 100
years of SR by chucking it in the bin!
Jim G
c'=c+v
You make very strange deductions. If a gravity field is present there
exist no vacuum and light velocity can be less than the maximal vacuum
value c without any violation of SR rules.
From where do you take your "c'=c+v"? I will suppose you are not one
who confuse the ordinary algebraic addition vector operation with the
relativistic composition of velocities rule(in his first Jun30-1905
relativity paper Einstein used the first many times before deriving
the second). Do you knew that if you have two moving entities A and B
with respective velocities Va and Vb in some inertial frame, you can
obtain their relative velocity (or closing velocity) Vab=Va-Vb with
ordinary vector subtraction without violating any SR rule? (light rays
included!). Do you knew that Vab is invariant in Newtonian mechanics,
but not in the relativistic one?
RVHG
[/quote:b910206afd]
And do YOU know that placing one speed "slope" upon another, which is
the scenaro whereby velocities are added under AE magic, the objects
in question have their DIRECTIONS changed. Do you suspect that this
might incur an insummountable problem with conservation of energy? Or
are you one of those who chose to ignore the fact that energy would be
required to produce such an "addition" ? And do YOU know that plotting
velocity (which is ALREADY a function of time), against "time" on the
y axis, is not on?
Jim G
c'=c+v |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Dirk Van de moortel |
| Posted: Thu Feb 17, 2005 5:28 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Jim Greenfield" <jgreen@seol.net.au> wrote in message news:e7b5cc5d.0502161654.3c60d4ec@posting.google.com...
[quote:b7b747c96a]"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<421322e3$1@usenet01.boi.hp.com>...
"Jim Greenfield" <jgreen@seol.net.au> wrote in message news:e7b5cc5d.0502152115.16f95f2b@posting.google.com...
valls@icmf.inf.cu (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) wrote in message news:<33d06fe2.0502151512.44a061d@posting.google.com>...
Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<MjsQd.4039$lz5.2811@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net>...
On Feb 14, 2005, at 7:04 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On Feb 14, 2005, at 2:29 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
(SKIP)
Albert Einstein wrote (1916):
"In the second place our result shows that, according to the general
theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of
light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental
assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have
already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A
curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of
propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as
a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it
the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in
reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special
theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity: its
results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences
of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light)".
RVHG
And as been clearly shown by data when observing light passing close
to the sun, gravity DOES influence light, so we can all celebrate 100
years of SR by chucking it in the bin!
Jim G
c'=c+v
SR's domain of exact applicability is in the absence of
gravitation. When gravitational influences are "sufficiently
small", SR is applicable as an excellent approximation.
This is -for instance- the case in particle accelerators where
the flight path lengths and times of the particles are small
enough so that gravitational influences are not detectable.
In this domain SR does a remarkable job and it accurately
describies everything we observe, and precisely predictis the
results of our experiments. If you throw SR in the bin, you
cannot design particle accelerators anymore. If you use your
c' = c+v to design an accelerator, it does not work, whether
you like it or not. If you demand to get a CAT scan on a
machine that is designed according to your c' = c+v, then
there will be no diagnose, because the machine will not work.
So I count on you that, when you think you have a tumor
and the doctor proposes a brain scan, you will get it over
with and chuck yourself in the bin right away. Thanks.
Dirk Vdm
They will all work perfectly well- even (especially) the GPS!
[/quote:b7b747c96a]
Yes, specially the GPS. Next time your plane must
make a blind landing, make sure you demand a GPS
that is based on your non-relativistic time keeping
alternative for this one:
http://www.gfy.ku.dk/~cct/Speciale1.pdf
Tell us in detail what you think is wrong with it and
then give us your private version, will you?
[quote:b7b747c96a]The mistakes in Relativity stem from the INTERPRETATION of what occurs
(and WHY)
[/quote:b7b747c96a]
The mistakes in what *you* think relativity is, stem from
*your* imbecile misinterpreation of it. I am not surpised.
[quote:b7b747c96a]Relativity says c doesn't alter, but length and time DO.
[/quote:b7b747c96a]
Relativity says that *measurements* of lengths and time
intervals depend on the relative velocity of the observer
and the observed.
[quote:b7b747c96a]This means
[/quote:b7b747c96a]
.... that we can ignore whatever you think it might mean
since you haven't understood it in the first place.
Dirk Vdm |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Thu Feb 17, 2005 7:08 pm |
|
|
|
|
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
[quote:61016ae64d]"Jim Greenfield" <jgreen@seol.net.au> wrote in message
news:e7b5cc5d.0502161654.3c60d4ec@posting.google.com...
"Dirk Van de moortel"
dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message[/quote:61016ae64d]
news:<421322e3$1@usenet01.boi.hp.com>...
[quote:61016ae64d]"Jim Greenfield" <jgreen@seol.net.au> wrote in message
news:e7b5cc5d.0502152115.16f95f2b@posting.google.com...
valls@icmf.inf.cu (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) wrote in message
news:<33d06fe2.0502151512.44a061d@posting.google.com>...
Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:<MjsQd.4039$lz5.2811@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net>...
On Feb 14, 2005, at 7:04 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On Feb 14, 2005, at 2:29 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
(SKIP)
Albert Einstein wrote (1916):
"In the second place our result shows that, according to the
general
theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the
velocity of
light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental
assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which
we have
already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited
validity. A
curvature of rays of light can only take place when the
velocity of
propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think
that as
a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and
with it
the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But
in
reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the
special
theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of
validity: its
results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the
influences
of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light)".
RVHG
And as been clearly shown by data when observing light passing
close
to the sun, gravity DOES influence light, so we can all
celebrate 100
years of SR by chucking it in the bin!
Jim G
c'=c+v
SR's domain of exact applicability is in the absence of
gravitation. When gravitational influences are "sufficiently
small", SR is applicable as an excellent approximation.
This is -for instance- the case in particle accelerators where
the flight path lengths and times of the particles are small
enough so that gravitational influences are not detectable.
In this domain SR does a remarkable job and it accurately
describies everything we observe, and precisely predictis the
results of our experiments. If you throw SR in the bin, you
cannot design particle accelerators anymore. If you use your
c' = c+v to design an accelerator, it does not work, whether
you like it or not. If you demand to get a CAT scan on a
machine that is designed according to your c' = c+v, then
there will be no diagnose, because the machine will not work.
So I count on you that, when you think you have a tumor
and the doctor proposes a brain scan, you will get it over
with and chuck yourself in the bin right away. Thanks.
Dirk Vdm
They will all work perfectly well- even (especially) the GPS!
Yes, specially the GPS. Next time your plane must
make a blind landing, make sure you demand a GPS
that is based on your non-relativistic time keeping
alternative for this one:
http://www.gfy.ku.dk/~cct/Speciale1.pdf
Tell us in detail what you think is wrong with it and
then give us your private version, will you?
[/quote:61016ae64d]
What can be wrong with an empty page????????????????
[quote:61016ae64d]
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.
[/quote:61016ae64d]
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.
[quote:61016ae64d]
This means
[/quote:61016ae64d]
....that I must have put another point which Dirk v has failed to answer
before.....
[quote:61016ae64d]
... that we can ignore whatever you think it might mean
since you haven't understood it in the first place.
[/quote:61016ae64d]
Jim G
c'=c+v |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter Webb |
| Posted: Fri Feb 18, 2005 1:47 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
| The velocity changes. The "speed" does not. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Dirk Van de moortel |
| Posted: Fri Feb 18, 2005 4:11 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
<jgreen@seol.net.au> wrote in message news:1108685289.582397.124740@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
[quote:860c8cf3e1]Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Jim Greenfield" <jgreen@seol.net.au> wrote in message
news:e7b5cc5d.0502161654.3c60d4ec@posting.google.com...
[/quote:860c8cf3e1]
[snip]
[quote:860c8cf3e1]
They will all work perfectly well- even (especially) the GPS!
Yes, specially the GPS. Next time your plane must
make a blind landing, make sure you demand a GPS
that is based on your non-relativistic time keeping
alternative for this one:
http://www.gfy.ku.dk/~cct/Speciale1.pdf
Tell us in detail what you think is wrong with it and
then give us your private version, will you?
What can be wrong with an empty page????????????????
[/quote:860c8cf3e1]
Check your dns, proxy and/or your news reader settings..
[quote:860c8cf3e1]
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.
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.
[/quote:860c8cf3e1]
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.
Dirk Vdm |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Henri Wilson |
| Posted: Tue Feb 22, 2005 4:01 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 10:11:53 +0100, "Dirk Van de moortel"
<dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
[quote:8b8be26a1f]
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.
[/quote:8b8be26a1f]
Relativity says that you can bend spoons just by looking at them whilst moving
away!
[quote:8b8be26a1f]
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.
[/quote:8b8be26a1f]
With source and mirror mutually at rest, that is correct (in flat gravity)
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.
Thankyou Dinky. Does this mean you will be joining us soon? (Actually we prefer
you didn't).
[quote:8b8be26a1f]
Dirk Vdm
[/quote:8b8be26a1f]
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Mon Nov 30, 2009 8:32 am
|
|