"Floyd Baker" wrote in message news



When an object increases in speed, during acceleration, does the
object 'shrink' in size, relative to a motionless observer.

It would me measured to have shrunk.

Once the object arrives at the intended velocity, and stops
accelerating, does its size stop reducing relative to the observer?

When two bodies are in constant relative motion, each
will measure the other to have shrunk.

Does an object shrinking occur in all directions, as opposed to only
the direction of travel?

An object is measured to shrink in the direction of (relative)
travel only.

If not, I would like to know why.

It would lead immediately to irresolvable paradoxes if
each object measured the other to have shrunk
laterally.

If yes, is the shrinking the result of the object's atoms all
shrinking?

It is better to consider that space itself is measured to
have shrunk. Therefore everything shrinks.

Do they shrink because the electrons find a longer path, a spiral path
instead of a circle, that is brought about by the acceleration or
deceleration?

No. Spirals are completely irrelevant.

That is; during acceleration, don't the electrons still have to
complete the full diameter of the orbit to keep the atom's properties?
That is; (long sentence coming up) if an electron's path is longer
because of the spiral, brought on by its effort to keep up with an
accelerating and escaping nucleus, and it would therefore not be able
to complete a full single orbit in the allotted time, because it could
NOT go faster, it would in effect be too slow to maintain it's
distance from the nucleus, so the electron would start to decay
towards that center. It would thus shrink until reaching equilibrium
again.


Is this what causes the shrinkage in size of objects?

No.

On slow down, does the same thing happen in reverse?
That is; as the nucleus slows down, the electrons tend to spiral ahead
of it in the direction of travel, thus having to deal with a longer
path again... But this longer path is what is needed to maintain
equilibrium at the slower velocity which uses a larger orbit. So the
distance of that path is 'corrected' from the spiral, back to the
larger orbit that stays with the nucleus.

No.

On the acceleration and deceleration size changes, is there some
correction time factor? A time that it takes for these changing
forces to come back into alignment... What occurs or is brought
about by this factor?


My end vision here is that there is this spaceship traveling across
the galaxy and they think they're moving at near the speed of light.
However earth viewers see the truth. They see a very much smaller
spaceship that has created for themselves a galaxy that is now 100
times larger. Earth sees the space ship traveling very *slowly*
across their field of vision because this is what is right for them.
The space travelers are trying to ignore the fact that the photons
from their headlights *are* traveling away from the ship at the speed
of light, where they logically should pile up in front of them. So
*they* can't be traveling that fast. Their instruments just *measure*
it that way.


Length contraction is best thought of as a consequence of
measurement in the spacetime in which we live.

In my mind right now, the faster you go, the further you have to go.
You may become so fast, that you will become so small, that the
distances will become so large, that you will never get there.

Other than worm holes, warps, or whatever, am I in the ballpark?

Not really.

Martin Hogbin

"Floyd Baker" wrote in message
...
| On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 16:12:12 +0000 (UTC), "Martin Hogbin"
| wrote:
|
| "Floyd Baker" wrote in message
news |
|
| When an object increases in speed, during acceleration, does the
| object 'shrink' in size, relative to a motionless observer.
|
| It would be measured to have shrunk.
|
| Ok. That's good.

No it isn't. It is stupid nonsense. Actually, it is a lie. You being lied
to.
Hogbin is a liar.

|
| Once the object arrives at the intended velocity, and stops
| accelerating, does its size stop reducing relative to the observer?
|
| When two bodies are in constant relative motion, each
| will measure the other to have shrunk.
LOL!
"You are shorter than me."
"No, I'm taller than you!"
"Are to!"
"Not!"
"My dad is bigger than your dad!"
"My dad can beat up your dad!"
"Can't!"
"Can to!"
and so on.
Jeez, the whole world is in constant relative motion, and the only thing
that
has shrunk is the dried out sponge that Hogbin uses for a brain.

| Now I guess I need to be sure of what your saying.

He's saying your computer screen is smaller than his because it's in
constant relative motion to his, and anyway his dad is bigger than your dad.
Just go out and buy a bigger monitor and prove he's wrong.


It's those term
| meanings again... g Do you mean, as in two elevators rising at
| the same rate in the upward direction? Maybe different speeds? Maybe
| different directions?

The idiot thinks his elevator stretches when pulled upwards and yours
doesn't. Also his ruler gets stretched so that he can MEASURE you as
shorter, or so he claims.

|
| Does an object shrinking occur in all directions, as opposed to only
| the direction of travel?
|
| An object is measured to shrink in the direction of (relative)
| travel only.

See, he said "measured" again. He thinks his ruler must have stretched.
|
| Is it unable to be measured laterally?
|
| If not, I would like to know why.
|
| It would lead immediately to irresolvable paradoxes if
| each object measured the other to have shrunk
| laterally.

| I don't see these paradoxes.

He's got an irresolvable paradox anyway. What's the difference?

|
| I know I shouldn't because I don't understand, and I am certainly
| naive being here, but please tell me what is proven that says that
| what I believe is wrong. I like to test my own thinking and I am
| hearing several things here. It seems there is disagreement even with
| people here.

Well, you see, some people come out of the theatre believing the woman
was sawn in half and then rejoined. Hogbin is one of them. Other's enjoy the
show but know it was just an illusion.

|
| It seems to me that if everything has their *own sized* atoms,
| depending on its particular velocity through space and because the
| speed of electrons is a constant, it would all come out nicely.
|
| At least to the extent I've taken it. There's the disclaimer but
| please stay with me.
|
| Why would it NOT happen as I see it?

Oh, you want to see a miniature woman sawn in half as well, huh?

|
| It is not totally reasonable to expect that the electrons will seek a
| lower level orbit as the nucleus speeds up. Why not? Else wouldn't
| matter self destruct when moved to quickly?
|
|
| Or another thought, is it possible that a nucleus can be moved forward
| on its own, leaving all electrons behind? It would then pull electron
| negative charges from all electrons it passes as it travels, as needed
| to balance its own charge? That's bizarre but I guess possible given
| enough available electrons. I'll be willing to forget that idea if
| no one says it's possible. g
|
|
| Does not light speed determines true size and distance in the
| universe? Electrons travel at this speed and so atoms must be sized
| according to their speed through space that affects the distance they
| must travel around the nucleus. Why is that not necessary? Why
| would the atom not become smaller?
|
| Again I ask, and I am not arguing to make *MY* point. I just need
| several answers, or the same one in different ways, for my head to
| vector in on a correct understanding.
|
| To me, orbits would need to be adjusted larger or smaller in the atoms
| of any object's particular change of velocity in space. All things
| would then be relative and come into one understandable relationship
| applicable to all aboard that object and elsewhere, including
| differences in time. It seems that the term space time continuum
| would be totally applicable... Not that I understand what refers to
| now you know? g
|
| Suppose we here on earth have 'normal' sized atoms. A ship speeding
| away has shrunk because of acceleration, and therefore has further to
| travel, and longer to do it in. We are shining a light out from
| space in their direction and we see it passing them and matching the
| speed of their own headlight beaming out ahead of them. Except that
| theirs is probably shifted cause they're compressing it doppler wise?
|
| As they accelerate, their time slows, they think they're traveling
| faster than they are. We see them speeding up to say a tenth the
| speed of light. Their instruments tell them they are doing 90
| percent of the speed of light. Of course the numbers here are for
| example only.
|
| It certainly does appear that the distance a spaceship could travel
| forward in the time an electron has to travel around its nucleus once,
| would be minuscule..., but as the spaceship approached c the electron
| would have to move in the direction of travel a distance equal to its
| own orbit... It couldn't do both, eh? If the ship did attain c,
| the electron would spend ALL its time moving in the direction of
| travel, not revolving in orbit at all, and time stops then, for them.
|
|
| If yes, is the shrinking the result of the object's atoms all
| shrinking?
|
| It is better to consider that space itself is measured to
| have shrunk. Therefore everything shrinks.
|
|
| If one atom of a near light speed spaceship shrinking can cause
| infinity to shrink, we're in trouble... :-) But I understand the
| measurement would take place within the spaceship and they only
| perceive it to shrink. Because their time is all wrong, because they
| are speeding.
|
| While atoms may be able to compensate for speed for a while, by
| shrinking electron orbits according to me, there would be a limit
| there. There has to be a non linear aspect somewhere..., somewhere
| between where the atom can retain the action of an atom, to when time
| stops and the electrons give up moving around the orbit at all?
|
| If that were to happen btw, what *could* happen. What happens to the
| individual + and - charges if time stopped. Even if only on the
| spaceship, when time has stopped and there is no movement present to
| balance them out? With no centrifugal force on the electron if
| nothing else?
|
|
| Do they shrink because the electrons find a longer path, a spiral path
| instead of a circle, that is brought about by the acceleration or
| deceleration?
|
| No. Spirals are completely irrelevant.
|
| I just can't see how they can be... If the sun started to move away
| from its position in space, wouldn't we be in trouble? On average?
|
| Other than worm holes, warps, or whatever, am I in the ballpark?
|
| Not really.
|
| Martin Hogbin
|
| I'm in the outfield I read. :-)
|
| Please humor me a bit longer if you must, to respond, but I'm just
| trying to understand things using analogies instead of the math I
| never took.
|
| Thanks.
|
| Floyd
Ah, you didn't take math.. shame. The fun part is figuring out how the trick
is done. Since it is done with math, you need math to figure it out. But
I'll give you the solution anyway. You may someday be able to understand it.
Hogbin won't, he'll ignore it.
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.

"Androcles" wrote in message ...

"Floyd Baker" wrote in message
...
| On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 16:12:12 +0000 (UTC), "Martin Hogbin"
| wrote:
|
| "Floyd Baker" wrote in message
news |
|
| When an object increases in speed, during acceleration, does the
| object 'shrink' in size, relative to a motionless observer.
|
| It would be measured to have shrunk.
|
| Ok. That's good.

No it isn't. It is stupid nonsense. Actually, it is a lie. You being lied
to.
Hogbin is a liar.

Androcles and the Liars:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...s/TheLiar.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di.../TheLiar2.html

Dirk Vdm

In sci.physics.relativity, Dirk Van de moortel

wrote
on Mon, 06 Sep 2004 15:53:38 GMT
:

"Androcles" wrote in message ...

"Floyd Baker" wrote in message
...
| On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 16:12:12 +0000 (UTC), "Martin Hogbin"
| wrote:
|
| "Floyd Baker" wrote in message
news |
|
| When an object increases in speed, during acceleration, does the
| object 'shrink' in size, relative to a motionless observer.
|
| It would be measured to have shrunk.
|
| Ok. That's good.

No it isn't. It is stupid nonsense. Actually, it is a lie. You being lied
to.
Hogbin is a liar.

Androcles and the Liars:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...s/TheLiar.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di.../TheLiar2.html

Dirk Vdm



So the scientists are lying when they're observing supernovae? :-)

*snort*

--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.

"Androcles" wrote in message ...


No it isn't. It is stupid nonsense. Actually, it is a lie. You being lied
to.
Hogbin is a liar.

In case it is not obvious to you, Androcles is one of
the regular crackpots on this group.

Martin Hogbin

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message ...
In sci.physics.relativity, Dirk Van de moortel

wrote
on Mon, 06 Sep 2004 15:53:38 GMT
:

"Androcles" wrote in message ...

"Floyd Baker" wrote in message
...
| On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 16:12:12 +0000 (UTC), "Martin Hogbin"
| wrote:
|
| "Floyd Baker" wrote in message
news |
|
| When an object increases in speed, during acceleration, does the
| object 'shrink' in size, relative to a motionless observer.
|
| It would be measured to have shrunk.
|
| Ok. That's good.

No it isn't. It is stupid nonsense. Actually, it is a lie. You being lied
to.
Hogbin is a liar.

Androcles and the Liars:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...s/TheLiar.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di.../TheLiar2.html

Dirk Vdm



So the scientists are lying when they're observing supernovae? :-)

You'll find out soon enough when Wilson replies to the Crab
question - if it all.
When Wilson replies, Androcles will jump in from the sideline :-)


*snort*

or in Androcles' words: *Chortle*.

Dirk Vdm

"Floyd Baker" wrote in message ...
On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 16:12:12 +0000 (UTC), "Martin Hogbin"
wrote:

"Floyd Baker" wrote in message news

snip

Again I ask, and I am not arguing to make *MY* point. I just need
several answers, or the same one in different ways, for my head to
vector in on a correct understanding.

OK, rather than address your points I will start at the beginning.
Although Einstein played a prime role in developing relativity
it is theory developed and verified experimentally by thousands
of physicist over nearly a century. Your ideas, on the other
hand are based on your own suppositions; forget them and
try to understand what it has taken decades for physicists
to develop and confirm.

Firstly, the principle of relativity. This is a very old idea which
was dropped for a short while around the turn of the previous
century only to be reinstated by Einstein in 1905. It says that
unaccelerated (inertial) motion is purely relative.

If you were in a space ship, not accelerating, and moving at
50,000 mph with respect to another spaceship you would
have no sensation of motion at all and you could rightly assert
that you were stationary and that the other spaceship
was moving at 50,000 mph. There is no such thing as moving
at a particular speed, you must be moving relative to something.

Are you with me so far?

Martin Hogbin

"Floyd Baker" wrote in message news
On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 18:13:01 +0000 (UTC), "Martin Hogbin"
wrote:


Firstly, the principle of relativity. This is a very old idea which
was dropped for a short while around the turn of the previous
century only to be reinstated by Einstein in 1905. It says that
unaccelerated (inertial) motion is purely relative.

If you were in a space ship, not accelerating, and moving at
50,000 mph with respect to another spaceship you would
have no sensation of motion at all and you could rightly assert
that you were stationary and that the other spaceship
was moving at 50,000 mph. There is no such thing as moving
at a particular speed, you must be moving relative to something.

Are you with me so far?

Absolutely.

OK, now for some real experiments. Well, nearly real.
Obviously the experiments below have not all been done
exactly as described, but sufficient real experiments have
been done to know what would happen.

I run towards you at 20 mph and throw a ball at you
which leaves me at 20 mph. You measure the ball to travel
at 40 mph. Now I stand still and you run towards me at
20 mph. Again I throw the ball at 20 mph. You measure
the ball to pass you at 40 mph. This is a classical particle.

I blow a whistle in still air and measure the speed of sound
from it to be 300 m/s. In the laboratory I run towards you
at 10 m/s blowing the whistle. You measure the sound to
pass you at 300 m/s. Now I stand still and you run towards
me at 10 m/s. You measure the sound to pass you at 310 m/s.
This is a classical wave in a medium.

I measure the speed of light from a laser to be 300,000 km/s
in a vacuum. I travel in a rocket towards you at 100,000 km/s
you measure the light to pass you at 300,000 km/s. Now I
stand still and you run towards me at 100,000 km/s. You
measure the light to pass you at 300,000 km/s. This is what
really happens.

Note there are no theories yet, just observations. Still
with me?

Martin Hogbin

"Floyd Baker" wrote in message ...
On Thu, 9 Sep 2004 22:06:18 +0000 (UTC), "Martin Hogbin"
wrote:



OK, now for some real experiments. Well, nearly real.
Obviously the experiments below have not all been done
exactly as described, but sufficient real experiments have
been done to know what would happen.

I run towards you at 20 mph and throw a ball at you
which leaves me at 20 mph. You measure the ball to travel
at 40 mph. Now I stand still and you run towards me at
20 mph. Again I throw the ball at 20 mph. You measure
the ball to pass you at 40 mph. This is a classical particle.

OK. + & + It's a solid object. No compression.

Yes, this is about idealised classical particles.


I blow a whistle in still air and measure the speed of sound
from it to be 300 m/s. In the laboratory I run towards you
at 10 m/s blowing the whistle. You measure the sound to
pass you at 300 m/s. Now I stand still and you run towards
me at 10 m/s. You measure the sound to pass you at 310 m/s.
This is a classical wave in a medium.

OK

With me standing and you running toward me, the frequency of the sound
will increase to me. The speed at which that higher frequency passes
me does not increase but the duration it takes to pass shortens.
*You* have shortened the time it takes to pass and so I only see the
higher frequency that results.

Yes, that is correct. Let us leave frequency out of it for the
moment and concentrate on speed.

With me running towards you and you standing still, the speed is
additive. My running into the sound causes the speeds to combine
which will again cause the frequency to increase, as registered in my
ear. But now *I* am shortening the time duration it takes to pass..,
so while my ears may 'register' it as a higher frequency, moving
through the air as it is, it is *not* in fact a higher frequency.

Yes, the frequency is shifted again, by a slightly different amount
(for the same speed). I understand what you mean when you
say the frequency is not shifted but as far as your ear drum is
concerned the frequency shift is real.

I measure the speed of light from a laser to be 300,000 km/s
in a vacuum. I travel in a rocket towards you at 100,000 km/s
you measure the light to pass you at 300,000 km/s. Now I
stand still and you run towards me at 100,000 km/s. You
measure the light to pass you at 300,000 km/s. This is what
really happens.

I see the light similar to sound,

That is how most physicists saw things in about 1900.

...with you traveling toward me, I
would see the light shifted upwards in frequency but not faster...
That would be the blue shift?

Yes, but let us ignore that for the moment and concentrate on
the speed.

Now... here's where it gets sticky.

Going by what you say above, apparently light is not affected by the
same rules that sound is.

That is correct.

You can *add* speed to the speed of sound,
but with light I would say that in me running towards you, the light
would still be shifted blue, just as the sound was likewise increased
in frequency. But it seems that it must not make any difference
whether it's *really* a higher frequency caused by you, or a
'perceived' higher frequency caused by me... I don't understand why.

We are talking about experimental observations here.
Whatever you think ought to happen does not matter.
The fact is that if you measure the speed of light in a
vacuum it is independent of the speed of the source
and the speed of the observer.

Any theory of physics that we come up with must
therefore explain this fact which, on the face of it,
does seem absurd.

This is where some of the crackpots fall down. They
produce diagrams or computer simulations to show
that light cannot possibly be measured to have the
same speed by two relatively moving observers.

If you want to know what light does the only way is
to make measurements on real light.

I do understand that *no* speed can be added to the already max'd
'speed of light'.

I would say that it's because there is no way to
*measure* 'faster than the speed of light' and so the needle is simply
pinned...

This is based only on some model in your head.

Explain the quandary in my last paragraph and then I'll be with you...

After all, it seems that even infinity can be increased by +1.
Simply *start* with the 1 and then add the rest.

Your mistake is in supposing that the arithmetic process
of adding is the right thing to do. For example if I
run relative to the Earth's surface at 10 m/s and throw
a ball at right angles to my direction of motion at 10 m/s
the speed of the ball over the Earth is not 20 m/s.

Martin Hogbin

"Floyd Baker" wrote in message
...
| On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 19:08:52 +0000 (UTC), "Martin Hogbin"
| wrote:
|
|
| "Floyd Baker" wrote in message
...
| On Thu, 9 Sep 2004 22:06:18 +0000 (UTC), "Martin Hogbin"
| wrote:
|
|
|
| OK, now for some real experiments. Well, nearly real.
| Obviously the experiments below have not all been done
| exactly as described, but sufficient real experiments have
| been done to know what would happen.
|
| I run towards you at 20 mph and throw a ball at you
| which leaves me at 20 mph. You measure the ball to travel
| at 40 mph. Now I stand still and you run towards me at
| 20 mph. Again I throw the ball at 20 mph. You measure
| the ball to pass you at 40 mph. This is a classical particle.
|
| OK. + & + It's a solid object. No compression.
|
| Yes, this is about idealised classical particles.
|
|
| I blow a whistle in still air and measure the speed of sound
| from it to be 300 m/s. In the laboratory I run towards you
| at 10 m/s blowing the whistle. You measure the sound to
| pass you at 300 m/s. Now I stand still and you run towards
| me at 10 m/s. You measure the sound to pass you at 310 m/s.
| This is a classical wave in a medium.
|
| OK
|
| With me standing and you running toward me, the frequency of the sound
| will increase to me. The speed at which that higher frequency passes
| me does not increase but the duration it takes to pass shortens.
| *You* have shortened the time it takes to pass and so I only see the
| higher frequency that results.
|
| Yes, that is correct. Let us leave frequency out of it for the
| moment and concentrate on speed.
|
| With me running towards you and you standing still, the speed is
| additive. My running into the sound causes the speeds to combine
| which will again cause the frequency to increase, as registered in my
| ear. But now *I* am shortening the time duration it takes to pass..,
| so while my ears may 'register' it as a higher frequency, moving
| through the air as it is, it is *not* in fact a higher frequency.
|
| Yes, the frequency is shifted again, by a slightly different amount
| (for the same speed). I understand what you mean when you
| say the frequency is not shifted but as far as your ear drum is
| concerned the frequency shift is real.
|
| I measure the speed of light from a laser to be 300,000 km/s
| in a vacuum. I travel in a rocket towards you at 100,000 km/s
| you measure the light to pass you at 300,000 km/s. Now I
| stand still and you run towards me at 100,000 km/s. You
| measure the light to pass you at 300,000 km/s. This is what
| really happens.

ROFLMAO!

"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in
the stationary system, with the velocity c-v, so that x'/(c-v) = t."
Einstein.
And that is what REALLY happens.

|
| I see the light similar to sound,
|
| That is how most physicists saw things in about 1900.

ROFL!
I'm pretty sure Michelson had given up aether in 1900, and he still wasn't
accepting Einstein's crap in 1930. "Most physicists" indeed!
The crackpot Hogbin makes it up as he goes along.

| It sounds like so far no one has proven them wrong... g
|
| But I'm listening.

You are listening to bull****, then.


|
| ...with you traveling toward me, I
| would see the light shifted upwards in frequency but not faster...
| That would be the blue shift?
|
| Yes, but let us ignore that for the moment and concentrate on
| the speed.

Why? Because the crackpot Hogbin can't think, maybe?
Speed was dealt with by Einstein, he said c-v.
Let's ignore the speed and concentrate on the frequency shift.
http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder....oksDoppler.htm

|
| Now... here's where it gets sticky.
|
| Going by what you say above, apparently light is not affected by the
| same rules that sound is.
|
| That is correct.
|
| You can *add* speed to the speed of sound,
| but with light I would say that in me running towards you, the light
| would still be shifted blue, just as the sound was likewise increased
| in frequency. But it seems that it must not make any difference
| whether it's *really* a higher frequency caused by you, or a
| 'perceived' higher frequency caused by me... I don't understand why.
|
| We are talking about experimental observations here.
| Whatever you think ought to happen does not matter.
| The fact is that if you measure the speed of light in a
| vacuum it is independent of the speed of the source
| and the speed of the observer.
|
| Well the blue shift happens. Isn't that the doppler effect?

It sure does. Hogbin is a crackpot.
This is real experimental observation, not Hogbin's imaginary observation.
http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder....ctual_data.htm
|
| Visible light is in the same spectrum that subsonic and microwaves
| are... It makes no sense that they don't all behave the same... So
| with that in mind, I can see natural limits to speed of *any* part of
| the spectrum, whether it's sound through the seas, RF through earth
| bound aether, or visable light in empty space. But I can't see *not*
| adding or subtracting one's own speed to that of the wave, to change
| the *frequency*, as is done with sound..., and is 'apparently' done
| with light.., as indicated by the blue shift, or the red shift in the
| other direction.
|
| What is the *difference* between light and sound in that respect?
None.


|
| Any theory of physics that we come up with must
| therefore explain this fact which, on the face of it,
| does seem absurd.
|
| This is where some of the crackpots fall down. They
| produce diagrams or computer simulations to show
| that light cannot possibly be measured to have the
| same speed by two relatively moving observers.

Note that it's the crackpot Hogbin saying this, because it cannot
possibly be measured to have the same speed by two relatively moving
observers, but even more to the point, it cannot possibly have one speed
from two co-moving sources for ONE observer.
--S------O------S t0
--S-------O-----S t1
--S--------O----S t2
or
--S------O----S t0
-S-------O---S t1
S--------O--S t2




|
| IOW, physics is a religion... You need faith? g

No.... RELATIVITY is a religion.
Physics is the study of nature.

|
| As far as I can see, going on the 'one speed of light for all'
| concept, each relative speed has to have its own time frame. It
| seems obvious this is a fact because the faster ones do take longer to
| age than the slower ones, as compared to each other when they come
| back together.
|
| So.... why *does* speed affect time?

It doesn't, of course.
Exception... There is an apparent affect on time that should not be ignored.
http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder....ekerinTime.htm


|
| If you want to know what light does the only way is
| to make measurements on real light.
|
| Ok I'll buy that.

Me too. Pity Hogbin has never tried it.

| But if the faster moving people who are measuring
| the same light as those slower moving people on earth are measuring,
| it has to mean that the faster people only think they're faster than
| the slower people, but in fact are not. I understand they are just
| as 'equal' in their own mind as the earth observers. But still, the
| people on earth can verify that as the 'faster' people move through
| space, it is at a very much slower speed than what they said they
| would be doing, and as *is* being measured on the ship at that moment,
| right? Actually too, BOTH the ship and the earth are each moving
| slower than they each believe, to a 'totally stationary' viewer out in
| space. That one person that is *not* relative, eh? That explanation
| makes sense to me. Why do I get the feeling that it doesn't to anyone
| else? Or how else to put it a better way...? What *does* happen to
| cause it? :-)
|
|
| I see a single light beam being measured to be the same speed by
| different velocity observers, as caused by their own perceived time
| frame.
|
| I see that their perceived time frame is in fact a real stretching of
| time, different for each of them, as shown by the fact they are
| younger upon returning from a long trip.
|
|
| I do understand that *no* speed can be added to the already max'd
| 'speed of light'.
|
| I would say that it's because there is no way to
| *measure* 'faster than the speed of light' and so the needle is simply
| pinned...
|
| This is based only on some model in your head.
|
| Ok so I'm looking at it as though light does not increase in speed,
| just that time durations it takes to go by me is either shortened, or
| lengthened. As I did by moving towards the end of the sound
| duration. What else is the blue or red shift if not this? A change
| in the lights 'frequency' but not speed, right?
|
| Explain the quandary in my last paragraph and then I'll be with you...
|
| After all, it seems that even infinity can be increased by +1.
| Simply *start* with the 1 and then add the rest.
|
| Your mistake is in supposing that the arithmetic process
| of adding is the right thing to do. For example if I
| run relative to the Earth's surface at 10 m/s and throw
| a ball at right angles to my direction of motion at 10 m/s
| the speed of the ball over the Earth is not 20 m/s.
|
| That's understandable...
|
| No... Actually even in sound, I did not say that the speed of sound
| itself increased. I said the frequency was increased, or that I
| shortened the duration of it traveling by me by moving myself..., if
| would give the appearance of it moving faster.
|
| If one were to measure the speed of sound as they moved towards its
| end, would they see a difference in its speed? They would by
| necessity, only see its *media* as it moved in the opposite direction
| to their travel. Ergo, no true 'sound' speed increase at all.
|
|
| Martin Hogbin
|
| I think I have all the 'perspective' fairly clear in my head, but I'm
| still wondering mostly how to tie in the time difference. That which
| causes all the various velocity observers to see one single beam of
| light traveling at its single max'd speed. Even though some are
| traveling near the speed of light themselves in the same direction.
| Are they measuring the 'medium' too? That which, as with sound,
| would compensate for any differences in the measurERS speed? Is
| there a medium in space that light propagates through, that is part of
| all measurements? I read that 2/3 of what is expected, is still
| missing? Maybe *that's* what's doing it? g
|
| Floyd
Welcome to the world of the sane, Floyd.
Androcles.