Query about simultaneous events..

**Robert B. Winn** · #81 September 10th 04 posted to sci.physics.relativity

"Androcles" wrote in message ...
"Robert B. Winn" wrote in message
om...
| "Androcles" wrote in message
...
| "Robert B. Winn" wrote in message
| ...
| | "Androcles" wrote in message
...
| | "Robert B. Winn" wrote in message
| | om...
| | | "Androcles" wrote in message
...
| | | "Robert B. Winn" wrote in message
| | | om...
| | | | "Androcles" wrote in
message
...
| | | | "Robert B. Winn" wrote in message
| | | | om...
| | | | | "Androcles" wrote in
| message
| ...
| | | | | "Robert B. Winn" wrote in message
| | | | | om...
| | | | | | "Androcles" wrote
in
| | message
| | ...
| | | | | | "Robert B. Winn" wrote in message
| | | | | |
om...
| | | | | | | "Androcles"
wrote
in
| | | message
| | | ...
| | | | | | | "Bruce Richmond" wrote in
message
| | | | | | |
om...
| | | | | | | | (Robert B. Winn) wrote in
message
| | | | | | |
. com...
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | I can't tell if the Lorentz equations are
the
result
| | | of a
| | | mistake
| | | | | | | | from not using velocity of light or whether
they
| | really
| | mean
| | | | | | | | something.
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | I can. They are a hopeless blunder and cannot be
derived.
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | The Seven Deadly Sins of Special
Relativity.
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | For quotations following, reference:
| | | | | | |
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
| | | | | | | ("On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" by
| Albert
| Einstein)
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | 1) "light is always propagated in empty space
with a
| | | definite
| | | velocity c
| | | | | | | which is independent of the state of motion of
the
| | emitting
| | body",
| | | | | | | a totally unproven assumption without any
evidence
to
| | | support
| | | it.
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | 2) "In agreement with experience we further
assume
| the
| quantity
| | | | | | | 2AB/(t'A-tA) = c to be a universal constant- the
| | velocity of
| | light
| | | | | in
| | | | | empty
| | | | | | | space.",
| | | | | | | an admitted assumption that is quite worthless
when
| | there is
| | any
| | | | | | | relative motion between A and B, yet essential
to
| the
| derivation
| | | | of
| | | | the
| | | | | | | remainder of Einstein's nonsense.
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | 3) The equation
| | | | | | | ½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] =
| | | | | tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
| | | | | ,
| | | | | | | the ½ of which is derived from 2) above and is
| | tantamount to
| | saying
| | | | | | | (1/3 + 2/3)/2 = 1/3.
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | 4) The missing 0' from that equation, since x' =
x-vt,
| | hence
| | 0'
| | | | =
| | | | 0-vt,
| | | | | | | and the equation should be
| | | | | | |
½[tau(-vt,0,0,t)+tau(-vt,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] =
tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
| | | | | | | at the very least.
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | 5) The further assumption "IF we place x' = x-vt
...
"
| | | without
| | | considering
| | | | | | | IF we place x' = x+vt, from which we derive
(using
| | | Einstein's
| | | method)
| | | | | | | tau = (t+xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
| | | | | | | xi = (x + vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)" -Paul B.
Andersen
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | 6) The statements
| | | | | | | "But the ray moves relatively to the initial
point
| of
| k,
| | | | | | | when measured in the stationary system, with the
| | velocity
| | c-v..."
| | | | | | | and
| | | | | | | "It follows, further, that the velocity of light
c
cannot be
| | | | altered
| | | | by
| | | | | | | composition with a velocity less than that of
light.
For
| | | this
| | | case
| | | | | we
| | | | | obtain
| | | | | | | V = (c+w)/(1+w/c) = c."
| | | | | | | which are contradictory, the first being
Galilean,
the
| | | second
| | | being
| | | | | | | contrary to the vector addition of velocities,
an
| axiom
| of a
| | | | vector
| | | | space.
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | 7) The lack of a check to verify the theory is
self-consistent
| | | | by
| | | | feeding
| | | | | | | the new PoR given in 6) into the equation given
in
| 3)
| and
| | | | finding a
| | | | total
| | | | | | | failure.
| | | | | | | Check:
| | | | | | |
(t1-t)/(t2-t)*[tau(-vt,0,0,t)+tau(-vt,0,0,t+x'/V+x'/V)]
| | =
| | tau(x',0,0,t+x'/V)
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Androcles.
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Well, I don't see anyone except me using -c for
velocity
| | of a
| | photon
| | | | | | | going in the -x direction. What do you use?
| | | | | | | Robert B. winn
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Duh...
| | | | | | The above went over the top of your head, didn't it?
| | | | | | Never mind, go back to your sand box or play on the
slide.
| | | | | | Androcles
| | | | | |
| | | | | | I have no idea what the above means. What do you use
for
the
| | | velocity
| | | of
| | | | | a photon?
| | | | |
| | | | | | Robert B. Winn
| | | | | A photon is just like anything else. No magic. We use c,
but
| | | RELATIVE to
| | | the
| | | | | source, as a bullet is relative to the gun. Crazy
Einstein
| | thinks it
| | is
| | | | | relative to the observer.
| | | | | http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/sekerin.htm
| | | | | Androcles
| | | | |
| | | | | Well, I thought scientists agreed that the motion of a
source
| of
| light
| | | | | relative to the observer did not affect the time it takes
a
| photon
| to
| | | | | reach the observer.
| | | |
| | | | All scientists agree! Wherever did you get that idea?
| | | | Scientists haven't agreed since Copernicus disagreed with
Ptolemy.
| | | |
| | | | | For instance, if a car is driving toward you and
| | | | | turns on its headlights, light from the moving car will
not
| reach
| you
| | | | | any faster than light from a parked car that has its
lights
| turned
| on
| | | | | the same distance away.
| | | |
| | | | Well, it won't in air. But if there is no medium, the light
will
reach
| | | | you sooner than the light from the parked car. The way to
test
this
| | | | is to use the ISS as the moving car and shoot a laser at the
moon.
| | | | You can see what happens as the "car" moves back and forth
| | | | going around in an ellipse. Did you even bother to read the
page
| | | | I cited above?
| | | | http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/sekerin.htm
| | | | You can't learn if you won't do your homework, y'know. You
are
| | | | a big boy now, getting free tuition. I expect you to pass a
test
| | | | or go find another tutor.
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | | That is what this modern physics book that I
| | | | | have says. I don't have amy problem with that.
| | | |
| | | | I would. Modern physics text books are out of date before
| | | | they are written, and seldom logical.
| | | |
| | | | | Mathematically all it
| | | | | means is that the point where the photon is emitted in a
frame
of
| | | | | reference does not change. If light is emitted at the
origin
| of
| K',
| | | | | then that does not change if the source of light moves
| relative to
| K'
| | | | | after the light is emitted.
| | | |
| | | | Ah... I see. Well, you should be reading a modern math text
book.
| | | | They contain sensible math, not Einstein's garbage that
leads to
paradox.
| | | | Androcles
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | | Robert B. winn
| | | |
| | | | Well, I read about the double stars and all, but it seems to
me
that
| | | | my equations explain it just as well.

| | | | Robert B. winn
| | |
| | | Oh? Please elucidate, do. The rest of us have to rely on
computer
programs
| | | to generate a light curve, but if you have an equation... well.
| | | That should be quite exciting.
| | | Androcles
| | |
| | | Well, no reason to try to explain something to a person who is
being
| | | sarcastic. If you want to believe -c can be replaced by c+v go
ahead
| | | and believe it.
| | | Robert B. Winn
| |
| | Hmm... c+v = -c.
| | v = -2c
| | c = -v/2
| | Is that your equation that explains double stars?
| | And you have no reason to explain it...
| | I see.
| | It would seem we are done then.
| | Have a nice day.
| | Androcles
| |
| | x=wt w=+c or
| | x'=wt' w=-c
| | x'=x-vt
| | as seen from K.
| |
| | x=x'-v't'
| | v'=-v
| | as seen from K'
| | These are my equations.
|
| They look fine to me, but I don't see how they explain double stars
| as you claimed. That is why I asked you to elaborate when you got the
hump.
|
| Androcles.
|
| | I'll see you later, then. Have a nice day.
| | Robert B. Winn
|
| Well, the equations you showed me had the light traveling at c+v and
| c-v. In my equations this is not correct. The light is always
| traveling at c.

I have the window behind me and the (open) door ahead of me.
The light from the window is travelling at -c, the light from the door
at +c, sice both come toward me.
I turn to face the window, and its light is now +c, the light
from the door -c. What is the velocity of light if I turn sideways
and look at the computer?

| If you are considering the light from the frame of
| reference of the star, then the light is being observed by an observer
| who is moving back and forth the distance of the radius of orbit at a
| distance of x from the star.

Correct, so you understand the PoR.

| If you are considering the light from
| the frame of reference of the observer, then the light emitted by the
| star is emitted from a source of light moving back and forth relative
| to the observer.

Correct, so you understand the PoR.

| This is ignoring the lateral motion of the orbit and
| just considering the distance between the star and the observer.

Correct.

| If we say that the star and the observer are both on the x axis,
| then the two points where we can show the relationship are at the time
| one double star is going away from our position and one is coming
| toward us, as the example showed. If the frame of reference of the
| star is K and we are K', then for the star moving toward us, our
| velocity is negative and for the star moving away, it is positive.
|
| x'=x-vt

What's wrong with x' = x+vt then?
Well, the correct form of the equation is x'=x-vt if v is the
velocity of K' relative to K. It becomes x'=x+vt if the velocity of
K' relative to K is negative. This is a special case of the other
equation.

By that I mean if the value of c is positive, why would you reverse the
sign of v?
c tells which way the photon is moving. v tells which way K' is
moving relative to K.

Actually, for a circular orbit, v.sin(omega.t) would apply, wouldn't it?
The value of sin(omega.t) is in the range { -1, 1} , so v.sin(omega.t)
is in the range {-v,v} isn't it?
I don't know. All I can work so far is one dimension. I can figure
photons going in the +x direction or photons going in the -x
direction.

|
| x' is the distance the light will travel in our frame of
| reference, x is the distance it will travel in the frame of reference
| of the star.

Doesn't x' = x then?
I think you are confused on that one.

x is a coordinate in K, x' is a coordinate in K'. If the origins
of K and K' coincide at t=t'=0, and K' has a velocity of v relative to
K, then after time t has elapsed in K, there will be a distance of vt
between the origins of K and K'.

x and x' are the same point. The photon has traveled a distance of
x in K and a distance of x' in K'.
|
| k
| k' o
|
| k
| k' o
|
| x is less than x' because we are traveling toward the star in
| its frame of reference. The velocity of light is c in both frames of
| reference.

Balderdash and bunkum. Prove it.
(remainder snipped at incorrect assumption)

Well, I was told Michelson and Morley had proven it.
Robert B. winn

**Androcles** · #82 September 10th 04 posted to sci.physics.relativity

"Robert B. Winn" wrote in message
om...
| "Androcles" wrote in message
...
| "Robert B. Winn" wrote in message
| om...
| | "Androcles" wrote in message
| ...
| | "Robert B. Winn" wrote in message
| | ...
| | | "Androcles" wrote in message
| ...
| | | "Robert B. Winn" wrote in message
| | | om...
| | | | "Androcles" wrote in
message
| ...
| | | | "Robert B. Winn" wrote in message
| | | | om...
| | | | | "Androcles" wrote in
| message
| ...
| | | | | "Robert B. Winn" wrote in message
| | | | | om...
| | | | | | "Androcles" wrote
in
| | message
| | ...
| | | | | | "Robert B. Winn" wrote in message
| | | | | |
om...
| | | | | | | "Androcles"
wrote
| in
| | | message
| | | ...
| | | | | | | "Robert B. Winn" wrote in
message
| | | | | | |
| om...
| | | | | | | | "Androcles"
| wrote
| in
| | | | message
| | | | ...
| | | | | | | | "Bruce Richmond" wrote
in
| message
| | | | | | | |
| om...
| | | | | | | | | (Robert B. Winn) wrote in
| message
| | | | | | | |
| . com...
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | I can't tell if the Lorentz equations
are
| the
| result
| | | | of a
| | | | mistake
| | | | | | | | | from not using velocity of light or
whether
| they
| | | really
| | | mean
| | | | | | | | | something.
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | I can. They are a hopeless blunder and
cannot be
| derived.
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | The Seven Deadly Sins of
Special
| Relativity.
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | For quotations following, reference:
| | | | | | | |
| http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
| | | | | | | | ("On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies"
by
| | Albert
| | Einstein)
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | 1) "light is always propagated in empty
space
| with a
| | | | definite
| | | | velocity c
| | | | | | | | which is independent of the state of motion
of
| the
| | | emitting
| | | body",
| | | | | | | | a totally unproven assumption without any
| evidence
| to
| | | | support
| | | | it.
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | 2) "In agreement with experience we further
| assume
| | the
| | quantity
| | | | | | | | 2AB/(t'A-tA) = c to be a universal constant-
the
| | | velocity of
| | | light
| | | | | | in
| | | | | | empty
| | | | | | | | space.",
| | | | | | | | an admitted assumption that is quite
worthless
| when
| | | there is
| | | any
| | | | | | | | relative motion between A and B, yet
essential
| to
| | the
| | derivation
| | | | | of
| | | | | the
| | | | | | | | remainder of Einstein's nonsense.
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | 3) The equation
| | | | | | | |
½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] =
| | | | | | tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
| | | | | | ,
| | | | | | | | the ½ of which is derived from 2) above and
is
| | | tantamount to
| | | saying
| | | | | | | | (1/3 + 2/3)/2 = 1/3.
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | 4) The missing 0' from that equation, since
x' =
| x-vt,
| | | hence
| | | 0'
| | | | | =
| | | | | 0-vt,
| | | | | | | | and the equation should be
| | | | | | | |
| ½[tau(-vt,0,0,t)+tau(-vt,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] =
| tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
| | | | | | | | at the very least.
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | 5) The further assumption "IF we place x' =
x-vt
| ...
| "
| | | | without
| | | | considering
| | | | | | | | IF we place x' = x+vt, from which we derive
| (using
| | | | Einstein's
| | | | method)
| | | | | | | | tau = (t+xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
| | | | | | | | xi = (x + vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)" -Paul B.
| Andersen
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | 6) The statements
| | | | | | | | "But the ray moves relatively to the
initial
| point
| | of
| | k,
| | | | | | | | when measured in the stationary system, with
the
| | | velocity
| | | c-v..."
| | | | | | | | and
| | | | | | | | "It follows, further, that the velocity of
light
| c
| cannot be
| | | | | altered
| | | | | by
| | | | | | | | composition with a velocity less than that
of
| light.
| For
| | | | this
| | | | case
| | | | | | we
| | | | | | obtain
| | | | | | | | V = (c+w)/(1+w/c) = c."
| | | | | | | | which are contradictory, the first being
| Galilean,
| the
| | | | second
| | | | being
| | | | | | | | contrary to the vector addition of
velocities,
| an
| | axiom
| | of a
| | | | | vector
| | | | | space.
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | 7) The lack of a check to verify the theory
is
| self-consistent
| | | | | by
| | | | | feeding
| | | | | | | | the new PoR given in 6) into the equation
given
| in
| | 3)
| | and
| | | | | finding a
| | | | | total
| | | | | | | | failure.
| | | | | | | | Check:
| | | | | | | |
| (t1-t)/(t2-t)*[tau(-vt,0,0,t)+tau(-vt,0,0,t+x'/V+x'/V)]
| | | =
| | | tau(x',0,0,t+x'/V)
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Androcles.
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Well, I don't see anyone except me using -c
for
| velocity
| | | of a
| | | photon
| | | | | | | | going in the -x direction. What do you use?
| | | | | | | | Robert B. winn
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Duh...
| | | | | | | The above went over the top of your head, didn't
it?
| | | | | | | Never mind, go back to your sand box or play on
the
| slide.
| | | | | | | Androcles
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | I have no idea what the above means. What do you
use
| for
| the
| | | | velocity
| | | | of
| | | | | | a photon?
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Robert B. Winn
| | | | | | A photon is just like anything else. No magic. We
use c,
| but
| | | | RELATIVE to
| | | | the
| | | | | | source, as a bullet is relative to the gun. Crazy
| Einstein
| | | thinks it
| | | is
| | | | | | relative to the observer.
| | | | | | http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/sekerin.htm
| | | | | | Androcles
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Well, I thought scientists agreed that the motion of a
| source
| | of
| | light
| | | | | | relative to the observer did not affect the time it
takes
| a
| | photon
| | to
| | | | | | reach the observer.
| | | | |
| | | | | All scientists agree! Wherever did you get that idea?
| | | | | Scientists haven't agreed since Copernicus disagreed
with
| Ptolemy.
| | | | |
| | | | | | For instance, if a car is driving toward you and
| | | | | | turns on its headlights, light from the moving car
will
| not
| | reach
| | you
| | | | | | any faster than light from a parked car that has its
| lights
| | turned
| | on
| | | | | | the same distance away.
| | | | |
| | | | | Well, it won't in air. But if there is no medium, the
light
| will
| reach
| | | | | you sooner than the light from the parked car. The way
to
| test
| this
| | | | | is to use the ISS as the moving car and shoot a laser at
the
| moon.
| | | | | You can see what happens as the "car" moves back and
forth
| | | | | going around in an ellipse. Did you even bother to read
the
| page
| | | | | I cited above?
| | | | | http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/sekerin.htm
| | | | | You can't learn if you won't do your homework, y'know.
You
| are
| | | | | a big boy now, getting free tuition. I expect you to
pass a
| test
| | | | | or go find another tutor.
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | | | That is what this modern physics book that I
| | | | | | have says. I don't have amy problem with that.
| | | | |
| | | | | I would. Modern physics text books are out of date
before
| | | | | they are written, and seldom logical.
| | | | |
| | | | | | Mathematically all it
| | | | | | means is that the point where the photon is emitted in
a
| frame
| of
| | | | | | reference does not change. If light is emitted at the
| origin
| | of
| | K',
| | | | | | then that does not change if the source of light moves
| | relative to
| | K'
| | | | | | after the light is emitted.
| | | | |
| | | | | Ah... I see. Well, you should be reading a modern math
text
| book.
| | | | | They contain sensible math, not Einstein's garbage that
| leads to
| paradox.
| | | | | Androcles
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | | | Robert B. winn
| | | | |
| | | | | Well, I read about the double stars and all, but it seems
to
| me
| that
| | | | | my equations explain it just as well.
|
| | | | | Robert B. winn
| | | |
| | | | Oh? Please elucidate, do. The rest of us have to rely on
| computer
| programs
| | | | to generate a light curve, but if you have an equation...
well.
| | | | That should be quite exciting.
| | | | Androcles
| | | |
| | | | Well, no reason to try to explain something to a person who is
| being
| | | | sarcastic. If you want to believe -c can be replaced by c+v
go
| ahead
| | | | and believe it.
| | | | Robert B. Winn
| | |
| | | Hmm... c+v = -c.
| | | v = -2c
| | | c = -v/2
| | | Is that your equation that explains double stars?
| | | And you have no reason to explain it...
| | | I see.
| | | It would seem we are done then.
| | | Have a nice day.
| | | Androcles
| | |
| | | x=wt w=+c or
| | | x'=wt' w=-c
| | | x'=x-vt
| | | as seen from K.
| | |
| | | x=x'-v't'
| | | v'=-v
| | | as seen from K'
| | | These are my equations.
| |
| | They look fine to me, but I don't see how they explain double stars
| | as you claimed. That is why I asked you to elaborate when you got
the
| hump.
| |
| | Androcles.
| |
| | | I'll see you later, then. Have a nice day.
| | | Robert B. Winn
| |
| | Well, the equations you showed me had the light traveling at c+v and
| | c-v. In my equations this is not correct. The light is always
| | traveling at c.
|
| I have the window behind me and the (open) door ahead of me.
| The light from the window is travelling at -c, the light from the door
| at +c, sice both come toward me.
| I turn to face the window, and its light is now +c, the light
| from the door -c. What is the velocity of light if I turn sideways
| and look at the computer?
|
|
|
| | If you are considering the light from the frame of
| | reference of the star, then the light is being observed by an observer
| | who is moving back and forth the distance of the radius of orbit at a
| | distance of x from the star.
|
| Correct, so you understand the PoR.
|
| | If you are considering the light from
| | the frame of reference of the observer, then the light emitted by the
| | star is emitted from a source of light moving back and forth relative
| | to the observer.
|
| Correct, so you understand the PoR.
|
|
| | This is ignoring the lateral motion of the orbit and
| | just considering the distance between the star and the observer.
|
| Correct.
|
| | If we say that the star and the observer are both on the x axis,
| | then the two points where we can show the relationship are at the time
| | one double star is going away from our position and one is coming
| | toward us, as the example showed. If the frame of reference of the
| | star is K and we are K', then for the star moving toward us, our
| | velocity is negative and for the star moving away, it is positive.
| |
| | x'=x-vt
|
| What's wrong with x' = x+vt then?
| Well, the correct form of the equation is x'=x-vt if v is the
| velocity of K' relative to K. It becomes x'=x+vt if the velocity of
| K' relative to K is negative. This is a special case of the other
| equation.

Why is one more special than the other?

|
| By that I mean if the value of c is positive, why would you reverse the
| sign of v?
| c tells which way the photon is moving. v tells which way K' is
| moving relative to K.
|
| Actually, for a circular orbit, v.sin(omega.t) would apply, wouldn't it?
| The value of sin(omega.t) is in the range { -1, 1} , so v.sin(omega.t)
| is in the range {-v,v} isn't it?

| I don't know. All I can work so far is one dimension. I can figure
| photons going in the +x direction or photons going in the -x
| direction.

Then you do not have an equation that explains the double star as claimed...
ok. shrug

|
|
| |
| | x' is the distance the light will travel in our frame of
| | reference, x is the distance it will travel in the frame of reference
| | of the star.
|
| Doesn't x' = x then?
| I think you are confused on that one.
|
| x is a coordinate in K, x' is a coordinate in K'. If the origins
| of K and K' coincide at t=t'=0, and K' has a velocity of v relative to
| K, then after time t has elapsed in K, there will be a distance of vt
| between the origins of K and K'.
|
|
| x and x' are the same point. The photon has traveled a distance of
| x in K and a distance of x' in K'.
| |
| | k
| | k' o
| |
| | k
| | k' o
| |
| | x is less than x' because we are traveling toward the star in
| | its frame of reference. The velocity of light is c in both frames of
| | reference.
|
| Balderdash and bunkum. Prove it.
| (remainder snipped at incorrect assumption)
|
| Well, I was told Michelson and Morley had proven it.

You do rely rather a lot on hearsay, don't you?
The only thing MMX proved was that there is no aether.
Welding rods get shorter when you pass an electric current through them.
True or False?
Androcles.

| Robert B. winn

**Robert B. Winn** · #83 September 10th 04 posted to sci.physics.relativity

"Androcles" wrote in message ...
"Robert B. Winn" wrote in message
om...
| "Androcles" wrote in message
...
| "Robert B. Winn" wrote in message
| om...
| | "Androcles" wrote in message
...
| | "Robert B. Winn" wrote in message
| | ...
| | | "Androcles" wrote in message
...
| | | "Robert B. Winn" wrote in message
| | | om...
| | | | "Androcles" wrote in
message
...
| | | | "Robert B. Winn" wrote in message
| | | | om...
| | | | | "Androcles" wrote in
| message
| ...
| | | | | "Robert B. Winn" wrote in message
| | | | | om...
| | | | | | "Androcles" wrote
in
| | message
| | ...
| | | | | | "Robert B. Winn" wrote in message
| | | | | |
om...
| | | | | | | "Androcles"
wrote
in
| | | message
| | | ...
| | | | | | | "Robert B. Winn" wrote in
message
| | | | | | |
om...
| | | | | | | | "Androcles"
| wrote
| in
| | | | message
| | | | ...
| | | | | | | | "Bruce Richmond" wrote
in
message
| | | | | | | |
om...
| | | | | | | | | (Robert B. Winn) wrote in
message
| | | | | | | |
. com...
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | I can't tell if the Lorentz equations
are
| the
| result
| | | | of a
| | | | mistake
| | | | | | | | | from not using velocity of light or
whether
they
| | | really
| | | mean
| | | | | | | | | something.
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | I can. They are a hopeless blunder and
cannot be
derived.
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | The Seven Deadly Sins of
Special
Relativity.
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | For quotations following, reference:
| | | | | | | |
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
| | | | | | | | ("On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies"
by
| | Albert
| | Einstein)
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | 1) "light is always propagated in empty
space
with a
| | | | definite
| | | | velocity c
| | | | | | | | which is independent of the state of motion
of
the
| | | emitting
| | | body",
| | | | | | | | a totally unproven assumption without any
| evidence
| to
| | | | support
| | | | it.
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | 2) "In agreement with experience we further
assume
| | the
| | quantity
| | | | | | | | 2AB/(t'A-tA) = c to be a universal constant-
the
| | | velocity of
| | | light
| | | | | | in
| | | | | | empty
| | | | | | | | space.",
| | | | | | | | an admitted assumption that is quite
worthless
when
| | | there is
| | | any
| | | | | | | | relative motion between A and B, yet
essential
to
| | the
| | derivation
| | | | | of
| | | | | the
| | | | | | | | remainder of Einstein's nonsense.
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | 3) The equation
| | | | | | | |
½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] =
| | | | | | tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
| | | | | | ,
| | | | | | | | the ½ of which is derived from 2) above and
is
| | | tantamount to
| | | saying
| | | | | | | | (1/3 + 2/3)/2 = 1/3.
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | 4) The missing 0' from that equation, since
x' =
x-vt,
| | | hence
| | | 0'
| | | | | =
| | | | | 0-vt,
| | | | | | | | and the equation should be
| | | | | | | |
| ½[tau(-vt,0,0,t)+tau(-vt,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] =
| tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
| | | | | | | | at the very least.
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | 5) The further assumption "IF we place x' =
x-vt
| ...
| "
| | | | without
| | | | considering
| | | | | | | | IF we place x' = x+vt, from which we derive
(using
| | | | Einstein's
| | | | method)
| | | | | | | | tau = (t+xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
| | | | | | | | xi = (x + vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)" -Paul B.
Andersen
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | 6) The statements
| | | | | | | | "But the ray moves relatively to the
initial
point
| | of
| | k,
| | | | | | | | when measured in the stationary system, with
the
| | | velocity
| | | c-v..."
| | | | | | | | and
| | | | | | | | "It follows, further, that the velocity of
light
| c
| cannot be
| | | | | altered
| | | | | by
| | | | | | | | composition with a velocity less than that
of
| light.
| For
| | | | this
| | | | case
| | | | | | we
| | | | | | obtain
| | | | | | | | V = (c+w)/(1+w/c) = c."
| | | | | | | | which are contradictory, the first being
| Galilean,
| the
| | | | second
| | | | being
| | | | | | | | contrary to the vector addition of
velocities,
an
| | axiom
| | of a
| | | | | vector
| | | | | space.
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | 7) The lack of a check to verify the theory
is
self-consistent
| | | | | by
| | | | | feeding
| | | | | | | | the new PoR given in 6) into the equation
given
in
| | 3)
| | and
| | | | | finding a
| | | | | total
| | | | | | | | failure.
| | | | | | | | Check:
| | | | | | | |
(t1-t)/(t2-t)*[tau(-vt,0,0,t)+tau(-vt,0,0,t+x'/V+x'/V)]
| | | =
| | | tau(x',0,0,t+x'/V)
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Androcles.
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Well, I don't see anyone except me using -c
for
velocity
| | | of a
| | | photon
| | | | | | | | going in the -x direction. What do you use?
| | | | | | | | Robert B. winn
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Duh...
| | | | | | | The above went over the top of your head, didn't
it?
| | | | | | | Never mind, go back to your sand box or play on
the
slide.
| | | | | | | Androcles
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | I have no idea what the above means. What do you
use
| for
| the
| | | | velocity
| | | | of
| | | | | | a photon?
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Robert B. Winn
| | | | | | A photon is just like anything else. No magic. We
use c,
but
| | | | RELATIVE to
| | | | the
| | | | | | source, as a bullet is relative to the gun. Crazy
Einstein
| | | thinks it
| | | is
| | | | | | relative to the observer.
| | | | | | http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/sekerin.htm
| | | | | | Androcles
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Well, I thought scientists agreed that the motion of a
source
| | of
| | light
| | | | | | relative to the observer did not affect the time it
takes
a
| | photon
| | to
| | | | | | reach the observer.
| | | | |
| | | | | All scientists agree! Wherever did you get that idea?
| | | | | Scientists haven't agreed since Copernicus disagreed
with
Ptolemy.
| | | | |
| | | | | | For instance, if a car is driving toward you and
| | | | | | turns on its headlights, light from the moving car
will
not
| | reach
| | you
| | | | | | any faster than light from a parked car that has its
lights
| | turned
| | on
| | | | | | the same distance away.
| | | | |
| | | | | Well, it won't in air. But if there is no medium, the
light
| will
| reach
| | | | | you sooner than the light from the parked car. The way
to
| test
| this
| | | | | is to use the ISS as the moving car and shoot a laser at
the
moon.
| | | | | You can see what happens as the "car" moves back and
forth
| | | | | going around in an ellipse. Did you even bother to read
the
page
| | | | | I cited above?
| | | | | http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/sekerin.htm
| | | | | You can't learn if you won't do your homework, y'know.
You
are
| | | | | a big boy now, getting free tuition. I expect you to
pass a
test
| | | | | or go find another tutor.
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | | | That is what this modern physics book that I
| | | | | | have says. I don't have amy problem with that.
| | | | |
| | | | | I would. Modern physics text books are out of date
before
| | | | | they are written, and seldom logical.
| | | | |
| | | | | | Mathematically all it
| | | | | | means is that the point where the photon is emitted in
a
| frame
| of
| | | | | | reference does not change. If light is emitted at the
origin
| | of
| | K',
| | | | | | then that does not change if the source of light moves
| | relative to
| | K'
| | | | | | after the light is emitted.
| | | | |
| | | | | Ah... I see. Well, you should be reading a modern math
text
book.
| | | | | They contain sensible math, not Einstein's garbage that
| leads to
| paradox.
| | | | | Androcles
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | | | Robert B. winn
| | | | |
| | | | | Well, I read about the double stars and all, but it seems
to
| me
| that
| | | | | my equations explain it just as well.

| | | | | Robert B. winn
| | | |
| | | | Oh? Please elucidate, do. The rest of us have to rely on
| computer
| programs
| | | | to generate a light curve, but if you have an equation...
well.
| | | | That should be quite exciting.
| | | | Androcles
| | | |
| | | | Well, no reason to try to explain something to a person who is
being
| | | | sarcastic. If you want to believe -c can be replaced by c+v
go
ahead
| | | | and believe it.
| | | | Robert B. Winn
| | |
| | | Hmm... c+v = -c.
| | | v = -2c
| | | c = -v/2
| | | Is that your equation that explains double stars?
| | | And you have no reason to explain it...
| | | I see.
| | | It would seem we are done then.
| | | Have a nice day.
| | | Androcles
| | |
| | | x=wt w=+c or
| | | x'=wt' w=-c
| | | x'=x-vt
| | | as seen from K.
| | |
| | | x=x'-v't'
| | | v'=-v
| | | as seen from K'
| | | These are my equations.
| |
| | They look fine to me, but I don't see how they explain double stars
| | as you claimed. That is why I asked you to elaborate when you got
the
hump.
| |
| | Androcles.
| |
| | | I'll see you later, then. Have a nice day.
| | | Robert B. Winn
| |
| | Well, the equations you showed me had the light traveling at c+v and
| | c-v. In my equations this is not correct. The light is always
| | traveling at c.
|
| I have the window behind me and the (open) door ahead of me.
| The light from the window is travelling at -c, the light from the door
| at +c, sice both come toward me.
| I turn to face the window, and its light is now +c, the light
| from the door -c. What is the velocity of light if I turn sideways
| and look at the computer?
|
|
|
| | If you are considering the light from the frame of
| | reference of the star, then the light is being observed by an observer
| | who is moving back and forth the distance of the radius of orbit at a
| | distance of x from the star.
|
| Correct, so you understand the PoR.
|
| | If you are considering the light from
| | the frame of reference of the observer, then the light emitted by the
| | star is emitted from a source of light moving back and forth relative
| | to the observer.
|
| Correct, so you understand the PoR.
|
|
| | This is ignoring the lateral motion of the orbit and
| | just considering the distance between the star and the observer.
|
| Correct.
|
| | If we say that the star and the observer are both on the x axis,
| | then the two points where we can show the relationship are at the time
| | one double star is going away from our position and one is coming
| | toward us, as the example showed. If the frame of reference of the
| | star is K and we are K', then for the star moving toward us, our
| | velocity is negative and for the star moving away, it is positive.
| |
| | x'=x-vt
|
| What's wrong with x' = x+vt then?
| Well, the correct form of the equation is x'=x-vt if v is the
| velocity of K' relative to K. It becomes x'=x+vt if the velocity of
| K' relative to K is negative. This is a special case of the other
| equation.

Why is one more special than the other?
Well, because as the equation was written, it showed the velocity of
K' relative to K. If the equation is written x'=x+vt it means that K'
has a negative velocity. The correct form of the equation is still
x'=x-vt. v is a negative number, which means that the correct form of
the equation the way you are trying to write it would be x'=x+(-v)t.
x'=x+vt has the velocity wrong.

|
| By that I mean if the value of c is positive, why would you reverse the
| sign of v?
| c tells which way the photon is moving. v tells which way K' is
| moving relative to K.
|
| Actually, for a circular orbit, v.sin(omega.t) would apply, wouldn't it?
| The value of sin(omega.t) is in the range { -1, 1} , so v.sin(omega.t)
| is in the range {-v,v} isn't it?

| I don't know. All I can work so far is one dimension. I can figure
| photons going in the +x direction or photons going in the -x
| direction.

Then you do not have an equation that explains the double star as claimed...
ok. shrug

It explains it well enough. As I said, velocity as it pertains to the
x direction is at a maximum when the stars are at the sides of the
orbit. Velocity decreases for the star moving toward the observer
until it becomes 0, then it becomes negative for the star moving away.
If you insist on having two dimensions, then you would have
another axis and velocity relative to that axis. Two dimensions make
the problem much more complicated.

|
|
| |
| | x' is the distance the light will travel in our frame of
| | reference, x is the distance it will travel in the frame of reference
| | of the star.
|
| Doesn't x' = x then?
| I think you are confused on that one.
|
| x is a coordinate in K, x' is a coordinate in K'. If the origins
| of K and K' coincide at t=t'=0, and K' has a velocity of v relative to
| K, then after time t has elapsed in K, there will be a distance of vt
| between the origins of K and K'.
|
|
| x and x' are the same point. The photon has traveled a distance of
| x in K and a distance of x' in K'.
| |
| | k
| | k' o
| |
| | k
| | k' o
| |
| | x is less than x' because we are traveling toward the star in
| | its frame of reference. The velocity of light is c in both frames of
| | reference.
|
| Balderdash and bunkum. Prove it.
| (remainder snipped at incorrect assumption)
|
| Well, I was told Michelson and Morley had proven it.

You do rely rather a lot on hearsay, don't you?
The only thing MMX proved was that there is no aether.
Welding rods get shorter when you pass an electric current through them.
True or False?
Androcles

They do if you strike an arc.
Robert B. Winn

**Androcles** · #84 September 10th 04 posted to sci.physics.relativity

**Robert B. Winn** · #85 September 11th 04 posted to sci.physics.relativity

"Androcles" wrote in message ...
"Robert B. Winn" wrote in message
om...
| "Androcles" wrote in message
...
| "Robert B. Winn" wrote in message
| om...
| | "Androcles" wrote in message
...
| | "Robert B. Winn" wrote in message
| | om...
| | | "Androcles" wrote in message
...
| | | "Robert B. Winn" wrote in message
| | | ...
| | | | "Androcles" wrote in
message
...
| | | | "Robert B. Winn" wrote in message
| | | | om...
| | | | | "Androcles" wrote in
| message
| ...
| | | | | "Robert B. Winn" wrote in message
| | | | | om...
| | | | | | "Androcles" wrote
in
| | message
| | ...
| | | | | | "Robert B. Winn" wrote in message
| | | | | |
om...
| | | | | | | "Androcles"
wrote
in
| | | message
| | | ...
| | | | | | | "Robert B. Winn" wrote in
message
| | | | | | |
om...
| | | | | | | | "Androcles"
| wrote
| in
| | | | message
| | | | ...
| | | | | | | | "Robert B. Winn" wrote in
message
| | | | | | | |
om...
| | | | | | | | | "Androcles"

| | wrote
| | in
| | | | | message
| | | | | ...
| | | | | | | | | "Bruce Richmond"
wrote
| in
| message
| | | | | | | | |
om...
| | | | | | | | | | (Robert B. Winn)
wrote in
message
| | | | | | | | |
. com...
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | I can't tell if the Lorentz
equations
are
| | the
| | result
| | | | | of a
| | | | | mistake
| | | | | | | | | | from not using velocity of light or
| whether
| they
| | | | really
| | | | mean
| | | | | | | | | | something.
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | I can. They are a hopeless blunder and
| cannot be
| derived.
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | The Seven Deadly Sins of
| Special
| Relativity.
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | For quotations following, reference:
| | | | | | | | |
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
| | | | | | | | | ("On the Electrodynamics of Moving
Bodies"
by
| | | Albert
| | | Einstein)
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | 1) "light is always propagated in empty
| space
| with a
| | | | | definite
| | | | | velocity c
| | | | | | | | | which is independent of the state of
motion
| of
| the
| | | | emitting
| | | | body",
| | | | | | | | | a totally unproven assumption without
any
| | evidence
| | to
| | | | | support
| | | | | it.
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | 2) "In agreement with experience we
further
assume
| | | the
| | | quantity
| | | | | | | | | 2AB/(t'A-tA) = c to be a universal
constant-
the
| | | | velocity of
| | | | light
| | | | | | | in
| | | | | | | empty
| | | | | | | | | space.",
| | | | | | | | | an admitted assumption that is quite
| worthless
| when
| | | | there is
| | | | any
| | | | | | | | | relative motion between A and B, yet
| essential
| to
| | | the
| | | derivation
| | | | | | of
| | | | | | the
| | | | | | | | | remainder of Einstein's nonsense.
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | 3) The equation
| | | | | | | | |
½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] =
| | | | | | | tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
| | | | | | | ,
| | | | | | | | | the ½ of which is derived from 2) above
and
is
| | | | tantamount to
| | | | saying
| | | | | | | | | (1/3 + 2/3)/2 = 1/3.
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | 4) The missing 0' from that equation,
since
| x' =
| x-vt,
| | | | hence
| | | | 0'
| | | | | | =
| | | | | | 0-vt,
| | | | | | | | | and the equation should be
| | | | | | | | |
| | ½[tau(-vt,0,0,t)+tau(-vt,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] =
| | tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
| | | | | | | | | at the very least.
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | 5) The further assumption "IF we place
x' =
x-vt
| | ...
| | "
| | | | | without
| | | | | considering
| | | | | | | | | IF we place x' = x+vt, from which we
derive
(using
| | | | | Einstein's
| | | | | method)
| | | | | | | | | tau = (t+xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
| | | | | | | | | xi = (x + vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)" -Paul
B.
Andersen
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | 6) The statements
| | | | | | | | | "But the ray moves relatively to the
| initial
| point
| | | of
| | | k,
| | | | | | | | | when measured in the stationary system,
with
the
| | | | velocity
| | | | c-v..."
| | | | | | | | | and
| | | | | | | | | "It follows, further, that the velocity
of
light
| | c
| | cannot be
| | | | | | altered
| | | | | | by
| | | | | | | | | composition with a velocity less than
that
of
| | light.
| | For
| | | | | this
| | | | | case
| | | | | | | we
| | | | | | | obtain
| | | | | | | | | V = (c+w)/(1+w/c) = c."
| | | | | | | | | which are contradictory, the first being
| | Galilean,
| | the
| | | | | second
| | | | | being
| | | | | | | | | contrary to the vector addition of
| velocities,
| an
| | | axiom
| | | of a
| | | | | | vector
| | | | | | space.
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | 7) The lack of a check to verify the
theory
| is
| self-consistent
| | | | | | by
| | | | | | feeding
| | | | | | | | | the new PoR given in 6) into the
equation
| given
| in
| | | 3)
| | | and
| | | | | | finding a
| | | | | | total
| | | | | | | | | failure.
| | | | | | | | | Check:
| | | | | | | | |
(t1-t)/(t2-t)*[tau(-vt,0,0,t)+tau(-vt,0,0,t+x'/V+x'/V)]
| | | | =
| | | | tau(x',0,0,t+x'/V)
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Androcles.
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Well, I don't see anyone except me
using -c
| for
| velocity
| | | | of a
| | | | photon
| | | | | | | | | going in the -x direction. What do you
use?
| | | | | | | | | Robert B. winn
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Duh...
| | | | | | | | The above went over the top of your head,
didn't
it?
| | | | | | | | Never mind, go back to your sand box or play
on
| the
| slide.
| | | | | | | | Androcles
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | I have no idea what the above means. What do
you
use
| | for
| | the
| | | | | velocity
| | | | | of
| | | | | | | a photon?
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Robert B. Winn
| | | | | | | A photon is just like anything else. No magic.
We
| use c,
| but
| | | | | RELATIVE to
| | | | | the
| | | | | | | source, as a bullet is relative to the gun.
Crazy
Einstein
| | | | thinks it
| | | | is
| | | | | | | relative to the observer.
| | | | | | | http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/sekerin.htm
| | | | | | | Androcles
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Well, I thought scientists agreed that the motion
of a
source
| | | of
| | | light
| | | | | | | relative to the observer did not affect the time
it
| takes
| a
| | | photon
| | | to
| | | | | | | reach the observer.
| | | | | |
| | | | | | All scientists agree! Wherever did you get that
idea?
| | | | | | Scientists haven't agreed since Copernicus disagreed
| with
| Ptolemy.
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | For instance, if a car is driving toward you and
| | | | | | | turns on its headlights, light from the moving car
| will
| not
| | | reach
| | | you
| | | | | | | any faster than light from a parked car that has
its
lights
| | | turned
| | | on
| | | | | | | the same distance away.
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Well, it won't in air. But if there is no medium,
the
light
| | will
| | reach
| | | | | | you sooner than the light from the parked car. The
way
to
| | test
| | this
| | | | | | is to use the ISS as the moving car and shoot a
laser at
| the
| moon.
| | | | | | You can see what happens as the "car" moves back and
forth
| | | | | | going around in an ellipse. Did you even bother to
read
| the
| page
| | | | | | I cited above?
| | | | | | http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/sekerin.htm
| | | | | | You can't learn if you won't do your homework,
y'know.
| You
| are
| | | | | | a big boy now, getting free tuition. I expect you to
| pass a
| test
| | | | | | or go find another tutor.
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | That is what this modern physics book that I
| | | | | | | have says. I don't have amy problem with that.
| | | | | |
| | | | | | I would. Modern physics text books are out of date
before
| | | | | | they are written, and seldom logical.
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Mathematically all it
| | | | | | | means is that the point where the photon is
emitted in
a
| | frame
| | of
| | | | | | | reference does not change. If light is emitted at
the
origin
| | | of
| | | K',
| | | | | | | then that does not change if the source of light
moves
| | | relative to
| | | K'
| | | | | | | after the light is emitted.
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Ah... I see. Well, you should be reading a modern
math
| text
| book.
| | | | | | They contain sensible math, not Einstein's garbage
that
| | leads to
| | paradox.
| | | | | | Androcles
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Robert B. winn
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Well, I read about the double stars and all, but it
seems
to
| | me
| | that
| | | | | | my equations explain it just as well.

| | | | | | Robert B. winn
| | | | |
| | | | | Oh? Please elucidate, do. The rest of us have to rely on
| | computer
| | programs
| | | | | to generate a light curve, but if you have an
equation...
well.
| | | | | That should be quite exciting.
| | | | | Androcles
| | | | |
| | | | | Well, no reason to try to explain something to a person
who is
being
| | | | | sarcastic. If you want to believe -c can be replaced by
c+v
| go
| ahead
| | | | | and believe it.
| | | | | Robert B. Winn
| | | |
| | | | Hmm... c+v = -c.
| | | | v = -2c
| | | | c = -v/2
| | | | Is that your equation that explains double stars?
| | | | And you have no reason to explain it...
| | | | I see.
| | | | It would seem we are done then.
| | | | Have a nice day.
| | | | Androcles
| | | |
| | | | x=wt w=+c or
| | | | x'=wt' w=-c
| | | | x'=x-vt
| | | | as seen from K.
| | | |
| | | | x=x'-v't'
| | | | v'=-v
| | | | as seen from K'
| | | | These are my equations.
| | |
| | | They look fine to me, but I don't see how they explain double
stars
| | | as you claimed. That is why I asked you to elaborate when you
got
| the
| hump.
| | |
| | | Androcles.
| | |
| | | | I'll see you later, then. Have a nice day.
| | | | Robert B. Winn
| | |
| | | Well, the equations you showed me had the light traveling at c+v
and
| | | c-v. In my equations this is not correct. The light is always
| | | traveling at c.
| |
| | I have the window behind me and the (open) door ahead of me.
| | The light from the window is travelling at -c, the light from the
door
| | at +c, sice both come toward me.
| | I turn to face the window, and its light is now +c, the light
| | from the door -c. What is the velocity of light if I turn sideways
| | and look at the computer?
| |
| |
| |
| | | If you are considering the light from the frame of
| | | reference of the star, then the light is being observed by an
observer
| | | who is moving back and forth the distance of the radius of orbit
at a
| | | distance of x from the star.
| |
| | Correct, so you understand the PoR.
| |
| | | If you are considering the light from
| | | the frame of reference of the observer, then the light emitted by
the
| | | star is emitted from a source of light moving back and forth
relative
| | | to the observer.
| |
| | Correct, so you understand the PoR.
| |
| |
| | | This is ignoring the lateral motion of the orbit and
| | | just considering the distance between the star and the observer.
| |
| | Correct.
| |
| | | If we say that the star and the observer are both on the x axis,
| | | then the two points where we can show the relationship are at the
time
| | | one double star is going away from our position and one is coming
| | | toward us, as the example showed. If the frame of reference of
the
| | | star is K and we are K', then for the star moving toward us, our
| | | velocity is negative and for the star moving away, it is positive.
| | |
| | | x'=x-vt
| |
| | What's wrong with x' = x+vt then?
| | Well, the correct form of the equation is x'=x-vt if v is the
| | velocity of K' relative to K. It becomes x'=x+vt if the velocity of
| | K' relative to K is negative. This is a special case of the other
| | equation.
|
| Why is one more special than the other?
| Well, because as the equation was written, it showed the velocity of
| K' relative to K. If the equation is written x'=x+vt it means that K'
| has a negative velocity. The correct form of the equation is still
| x'=x-vt. v is a negative number, which means that the correct form of
| the equation the way you are trying to write it would be x'=x+(-v)t.
| x'=x+vt has the velocity wrong.
|
|
| |
| | By that I mean if the value of c is positive, why would you reverse
the
| | sign of v?
| | c tells which way the photon is moving. v tells which way K' is
| | moving relative to K.
| |
| | Actually, for a circular orbit, v.sin(omega.t) would apply, wouldn't
it?
| | The value of sin(omega.t) is in the range { -1, 1} , so
v.sin(omega.t)
| | is in the range {-v,v} isn't it?

| | I don't know. All I can work so far is one dimension. I can figure
| | photons going in the +x direction or photons going in the -x
| | direction.
|
| Then you do not have an equation that explains the double star as
claimed...
| ok. shrug
|
| It explains it well enough. As I said, velocity as it pertains to the
| x direction is at a maximum when the stars are at the sides of the
| orbit. Velocity decreases for the star moving toward the observer
| until it becomes 0, then it becomes negative for the star moving away.
| If you insist on having two dimensions, then you would have
| another axis and velocity relative to that axis. Two dimensions make
| the problem much more complicated.
|
| |
| |
| | |
| | | x' is the distance the light will travel in our frame of
| | | reference, x is the distance it will travel in the frame of
reference
| | | of the star.
| |
| | Doesn't x' = x then?
| | I think you are confused on that one.
| |
| | x is a coordinate in K, x' is a coordinate in K'. If the origins
| | of K and K' coincide at t=t'=0, and K' has a velocity of v relative to
| | K, then after time t has elapsed in K, there will be a distance of vt
| | between the origins of K and K'.
| |
| |
| | x and x' are the same point. The photon has traveled a distance of
| | x in K and a distance of x' in K'.
| | |
| | | k
| | | k' o
| | |
| | | k
| | | k' o
| | |
| | | x is less than x' because we are traveling toward the star in
| | | its frame of reference. The velocity of light is c in both frames
of
| | | reference.
| |
| | Balderdash and bunkum. Prove it.
| | (remainder snipped at incorrect assumption)
| |
| | Well, I was told Michelson and Morley had proven it.
|
| You do rely rather a lot on hearsay, don't you?
| The only thing MMX proved was that there is no aether.
| Welding rods get shorter when you pass an electric current through them.
| True or False?
| Androcles
|
| They do if you strike an arc.
If you connect them without the arc, they heat up and get longer.
Michelson and Morley proved it.
Androcles

Well, Ernie Berger proved it too.
Robert B. winn

**Androcles** · #86 September 11th 04 posted to sci.physics.relativity