In sci.physics.relativity, Henri Wilson
H@.
wrote
on Thu, 14 Oct 2004 21:13:14 GMT
:
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 14:00:07 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:

In sci.physics.relativity, Henri Wilson
H@.
wrote
on Thu, 14 Oct 2004 12:01:01 GMT
:
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 06:00:05 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:

In sci.physics.relativity, Henri Wilson
H@.
wrote
on Tue, 12 Oct 2004 00:17:01 GMT

Special relativity is nifty, it makes answering those questions easy.

Well go on then! Answer the questions.

How can both observers O and A agree that light reflects from A's
mirror at its incident speed?

By twisting time. You may scoff if you like, but both time and
space are affected, at least as far as an observer is concerned,
by velocity. To hypothesize that they're not would lose light's
speed-invariance; I would hope you've seen my posts (aided with
others) where I derive the Lorentz solely from the constancy of c
and an assumption which I might call a "quasi-linear tensor", or
some such -- Androcles has already disputed my logic (and has shown
the understanding of a turnip while doing so). No doubt you're next... :-)

Ghost, no matter what you do to A's clocks, you cannot change the
fact he will deem light to reflect from his mirror at its incident
speed.

Yes, and O will see the light beam come back at *its* speed, as well.
One of the more endearing quirks about SR.

But it doesn't work Ghost.

Like I said, A places a clock 1 light second in front of him.
Any 'contractions' assumed by relativity will work on both the forward and
reflected beam that strikes A's mirror.

And they do, "adjusting" the speed back to c.

BUT THE ONE 'CONTRACTION' CANNOT TRANSFORM BOTH THE FORWARD AND REFLECTED
SPEEDS SO THAT THEY ARE BOTH EQUAL TO C.

Why not? Gamma is symmetric with respect to v. Or hadn't you noticed? :-)

x' = (x - vt) * sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)






Since when did we have a drive system capable of accelerating
*ANYTHING* macroscopic to even 2 parts per hundred of c? Much less
within the Earth-Moon distance...

Geese, the experiment can be performed at v=.000000002c if you like.

That's about the speed of a walking man (60 cm/s). You might
look up "Mo[e]ssbauer effect"; the iron block traveled rather
more slowly than that, and still showed a gamma resonance difference.

I am quite familiar with the Mossbauer effect Ghost.

Then you have a hypothesis other than time distortion that
accounts for the resonance difference? (Frequency is
measured in cycles per second. Tamper with the second,
and one gets a different frequency...)

Tamper with light speed and one gets a difference.

Correct -- a difference in frequency.


The Pound-rebka experiment uses the Mossbauer effect to show that light speed
increases when light falls down a gravity well.

That is one possible conclusion, perhaps. Most interpret it as an
increase in *energy or increase in frequency.




If the speed is slow the distance has to be increased, obviously.



I merely chose the nice simple figure of 0.2 because I thought three digit
numbers and higher might be too hard for the SRian mind to handle.

GP/Pari is a great help. :-P Besides, one can always play "symbolic
definition" (although overplay can result in the MEGO effect).

Have you absorbed nothing over the years Geese.
DeSitter was wrong.

And the supernovae observations? Are they also wrong?

Probably. They are based on Einsteiniana.

he *observations*, of course, are totally wrong,
since they are somehow based on the *theory*.

Now you could quibble as to my *predictions* (if one assumes
c' = c+v, and inputs certain data, I for one draw certain
conclusions which do not fit with the observations recorded
by the ancients). Or one can quibble with the observations,
perhaps, if those making the observations were stoned,
drunk, malfunctioning, or dead.

Or all four at once..


My understanding is that those in 1054 who noted the
novae were none of the above at the time of the observation
(of course, they're all dead now).

well we cannot invite them to join this conversation.

But I for one would think they left notes... :-)




That is measurable. (The rotating mirror technique, for instance).

I'm not entirely certain, as that's about 500 GHz. However, one can
try to either speed up the wheel or lengthen the distance.

It's easy enough to spin a shaft at 10,000 RPM -- many of the
higher-quality disk drives do it routinely in PCs. (The
plebian ones make do with 5,400 RPM.) I don't know the
tensile strength of iron/composites, though, so can't say if
a 3m diameter (radius?) disk can spin at that speed without
flying into pieces.

I should note that a car's flywheel holds together at 6,000 RPM;
presumably that's 50 cm in diameter but would have to look.
Of course that depends on the make of car, and there's no mirrors
attached to such a device -- which would make for a mildly
interesting balancing problem, not unlike rotating tires.

Steel would be OK. I gather the latest high speed ones are
carbon fibre. the mirrors have to both face the same way.
There is no great problem with speed except that the mirrors
might distort slightly and that could throw the experiment out
a bit. A 'perfect' vacuum is really essential.
The difficulty may lie in the detection of the two weak spots
of light as they flash past at maybe c.

I don't see any insuperable difficulties here. The main problem
is how to distinguish energy variance from frequency variance.

Uhu!

Ra!

You have been reading my other posts.

It's a logical problem. If one postulates c'=c+v the next question
is how to represent E = hf properly (E = hfv^2/c^2?). If one
postulates c'=c E=hv is left unchanged.

It presents a minor problem when attempting to measure differences
in speed as opposed to differences in frequency, when either the
light source or the light target is moving during the experiment.

I suggest that E=h.nu and any other associated equation only applies in the
source frame.

What equation applies in the observer frame?



Doesn't he? He's at least done some. (My knowledge of experimental
physics might be at the "rubber-band ping-pong ball-thrower" level.


That's what your theory says.
Why should I believe it?

Why indeed? Nobody can move a clock at 0.6 c; the best we can do
is shove around a decaying muon.

..and we know that muons travel faster than c wrt the Earth's
surface, don't we Ghost? That's why they reach the surface.

They don't need to travel faster than light to reach the Earth's surface,
just fast enough so that they reach the surface before they decay
(as observed by us, they exhibit a considerable slowdown).

I can't say, however, to be knowledgeable about particle physics
so can't answer objections such as "well, they might have been
generated by an in-air collision", though.

they are.

Oh, OK. You have evidence of this, right?




Ghost, this DOES NOT explain how both A and O can BOTH come to
the conclusion that light reflects of A's mirror at its
incident velocity.

If you refuse to accept SR I cannot explain it to you. Even
with SR I'd have to work it out; I'm not entirely certain that
O will see equal angles here, either.

Ghost, there aren't any angles in this experiment. It is linear.
Go pour yourself another glass.

Angle of incidence = Angle of reflection = 90 in that case, then.
You might want to restudy MMX to see why it has a null result.

I know the MMX backwards.

It obviously and conclusively proves that light speed is source dependent.


That is one hypothesis, yes, that is consistent with MMX.



HW.

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm


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

In sci.physics.relativity, Eric Gisse

wrote
on 14 Oct 2004 16:46:05 -0700
:
The Ghost In The Machine wrote in message ...
[snip]


Light does nothing when it is not observed. A photon is the ultimate
stealth weapon. Fortunately (?), the maximum size of a photon
is sqrt(h * c^3 / G) or 1.956 * 10^9 J -- about 1/2 ton of TNT.

"...And you tell people that, and they'll never believe you"/Monty Python

Watch Henri Wilson ignore all of the above as Einsteiniana.


It is 'argue with the cranks inbetween homework' week. o_O

Which is exactly what they are (AFAIK, anyway; some of them might
have been predicted by notables as the theory has evolved over
the decades); they are predictions of SR.

(Except for the Planck energy; I'm not sure where that comes from.)

Dimensional analysis

Questionable use, but sets a nice scale!


This doesn't make them untrue, of course -- and AFAIK they've been
nicely validated by design and experiment: design because such
things as GPS and particle accelerators must deal with the quirks
of SR and GR, lest they not function to spec; experiment because
a large number of measurements of lightspeed have been done, and
they all read c (within measurement error).

As far as I know, GR isn't needed within accelerators - just SR. I
would be thrilled if gravitation could be tested at those scales.

Mea culpa; it certainly would take a *lot* of energy to create
a particle with the equivalent of 1 kg. (There is the
"Oh My God" proton particle, though, which had an energy of
about 51 joules.

http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/ohmygodpart.html )


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

In sci.physics.relativity, Henri Wilson
H@.
wrote
on Thu, 14 Oct 2004 20:57:29 GMT
:
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 14:00:08 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:

In sci.physics.relativity, Titan Point

wrote
on 14 Oct 2004 05:48:27 -0700


"...And you tell people that, and they'll never believe you"/Monty Python

Watch Henri Wilson ignore all of the above as Einsteiniana.

Which is exactly what they are (AFAIK, anyway; some of them might
have been predicted by notables as the theory has evolved over
the decades); they are predictions of SR.

(Except for the Planck energy; I'm not sure where that comes from.)

This doesn't make them untrue, of course -- and AFAIK they've been
nicely validated by design and experiment: design because such
things as GPS and particle accelerators must deal with the quirks
of SR and GR, lest they not function to spec; experiment because
a large number of measurements of lightspeed have been done, and
they all read c (within measurement error).

Ghost, all light speed measurements so far have been of the two way type. The
constancy of the result is fully supportive of the ballistic theory.


So do a variation of Pound-Rebka. The source throws out
10,000,000 cycles of, say, 0.5 micron light each pulse --
about 50 meters' worth. The clocks are synchronized at
the beginning of the experiment, then moved into position.
The experiment is repeated a number of times, and with the
source at point A pointing up, then at point B pointing downward.


B
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A

--------table surface--------

The results should be interesting. Unfortunately, the clock
in point A will run a tad slow, interfering with the synchronization.



HW.

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm


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

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 07:00:50 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:

In sci.physics.relativity, Henri Wilson
H@.
wrote
on Thu, 14 Oct 2004 20:57:29 GMT
:
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 14:00:08 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:

In sci.physics.relativity, Titan Point

wrote
on 14 Oct 2004 05:48:27 -0700


"...And you tell people that, and they'll never believe you"/Monty Python

Watch Henri Wilson ignore all of the above as Einsteiniana.

Which is exactly what they are (AFAIK, anyway; some of them might
have been predicted by notables as the theory has evolved over
the decades); they are predictions of SR.

(Except for the Planck energy; I'm not sure where that comes from.)

This doesn't make them untrue, of course -- and AFAIK they've been
nicely validated by design and experiment: design because such
things as GPS and particle accelerators must deal with the quirks
of SR and GR, lest they not function to spec; experiment because
a large number of measurements of lightspeed have been done, and
they all read c (within measurement error).

Ghost, all light speed measurements so far have been of the two way type. The
constancy of the result is fully supportive of the ballistic theory.


So do a variation of Pound-Rebka. The source throws out
10,000,000 cycles of, say, 0.5 micron light each pulse --
about 50 meters' worth. The clocks are synchronized at
the beginning of the experiment, then moved into position.
The experiment is repeated a number of times, and with the
source at point A pointing up, then at point B pointing downward.


B
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A

--------table surface--------

The results should be interesting. Unfortunately, the clock
in point A will run a tad slow, interfering with the synchronization.

Yes that should be an interesting experiment. I'll think about that. There is a
problem. Pound-Rebka used gamma particles.
I would expect individual photons to slow down as they are projected upwards
but the 'phase velocity' or whatever, might not.

The rates can be synched when the top clock is in place.




HW.

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm


HW.

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 07:00:49 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:

In sci.physics.relativity, Henri Wilson
H@.
wrote
on Thu, 14 Oct 2004 21:13:14 GMT
:
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 14:00:07 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:

In sci.physics.relativity, Henri Wilson
H@.
wrote
on Thu, 14 Oct 2004 12:01:01 GMT
:
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 06:00:05 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:

In sci.physics.relativity, Henri Wilson
H@.
wrote
on Tue, 12 Oct 2004 00:17:01 GMT

Special relativity is nifty, it makes answering those questions easy.

Well go on then! Answer the questions.

How can both observers O and A agree that light reflects from A's
mirror at its incident speed?

By twisting time. You may scoff if you like, but both time and
space are affected, at least as far as an observer is concerned,
by velocity. To hypothesize that they're not would lose light's
speed-invariance; I would hope you've seen my posts (aided with
others) where I derive the Lorentz solely from the constancy of c
and an assumption which I might call a "quasi-linear tensor", or
some such -- Androcles has already disputed my logic (and has shown
the understanding of a turnip while doing so). No doubt you're next... :-)

Ghost, no matter what you do to A's clocks, you cannot change the
fact he will deem light to reflect from his mirror at its incident
speed.

Yes, and O will see the light beam come back at *its* speed, as well.
One of the more endearing quirks about SR.

But it doesn't work Ghost.

Like I said, A places a clock 1 light second in front of him.
Any 'contractions' assumed by relativity will work on both the forward and
reflected beam that strikes A's mirror.

And they do, "adjusting" the speed back to c.

BUT THE ONE 'CONTRACTION' CANNOT TRANSFORM BOTH THE FORWARD AND REFLECTED
SPEEDS SO THAT THEY ARE BOTH EQUAL TO C.

Why not? Gamma is symmetric with respect to v. Or hadn't you noticed? :-)

x' = (x - vt) * sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)

Because Ghost, the 'v's are different in each direction.







Since when did we have a drive system capable of accelerating
*ANYTHING* macroscopic to even 2 parts per hundred of c? Much less
within the Earth-Moon distance...

Geese, the experiment can be performed at v=.000000002c if you like.

That's about the speed of a walking man (60 cm/s). You might
look up "Mo[e]ssbauer effect"; the iron block traveled rather
more slowly than that, and still showed a gamma resonance difference.

I am quite familiar with the Mossbauer effect Ghost.

Then you have a hypothesis other than time distortion that
accounts for the resonance difference? (Frequency is
measured in cycles per second. Tamper with the second,
and one gets a different frequency...)

Tamper with light speed and one gets a difference.

Correct -- a difference in frequency.


The Pound-rebka experiment uses the Mossbauer effect to show that light speed
increases when light falls down a gravity well.

That is one possible conclusion, perhaps. Most interpret it as an
increase in *energy or increase in frequency.

It is indeed an increase in frequency. ...one that would be expected from an
increased light speed.


Have you absorbed nothing over the years Geese.
DeSitter was wrong.

And the supernovae observations? Are they also wrong?

Probably. They are based on Einsteiniana.

he *observations*, of course, are totally wrong,
since they are somehow based on the *theory*.

Now you could quibble as to my *predictions* (if one assumes
c' = c+v, and inputs certain data, I for one draw certain
conclusions which do not fit with the observations recorded
by the ancients). Or one can quibble with the observations,
perhaps, if those making the observations were stoned,
drunk, malfunctioning, or dead.

Or all four at once..


My understanding is that those in 1054 who noted the
novae were none of the above at the time of the observation
(of course, they're all dead now).

well we cannot invite them to join this conversation.

But I for one would think they left notes... :-)




That is measurable. (The rotating mirror technique, for instance).

I'm not entirely certain, as that's about 500 GHz. However, one can
try to either speed up the wheel or lengthen the distance.

It's easy enough to spin a shaft at 10,000 RPM -- many of the
higher-quality disk drives do it routinely in PCs. (The
plebian ones make do with 5,400 RPM.) I don't know the
tensile strength of iron/composites, though, so can't say if
a 3m diameter (radius?) disk can spin at that speed without
flying into pieces.

I should note that a car's flywheel holds together at 6,000 RPM;
presumably that's 50 cm in diameter but would have to look.
Of course that depends on the make of car, and there's no mirrors
attached to such a device -- which would make for a mildly
interesting balancing problem, not unlike rotating tires.

Steel would be OK. I gather the latest high speed ones are
carbon fibre. the mirrors have to both face the same way.
There is no great problem with speed except that the mirrors
might distort slightly and that could throw the experiment out
a bit. A 'perfect' vacuum is really essential.
The difficulty may lie in the detection of the two weak spots
of light as they flash past at maybe c.

I don't see any insuperable difficulties here. The main problem
is how to distinguish energy variance from frequency variance.

Uhu!

Ra!

You have been reading my other posts.

It's a logical problem. If one postulates c'=c+v the next question
is how to represent E = hf properly (E = hfv^2/c^2?). If one
postulates c'=c E=hv is left unchanged.

It presents a minor problem when attempting to measure differences
in speed as opposed to differences in frequency, when either the
light source or the light target is moving during the experiment.

I suggest that E=h.nu and any other associated equation only applies in the
source frame.

What equation applies in the observer frame?

E=h.nu.[c/(c-v)], I suppose.




Doesn't he? He's at least done some. (My knowledge of experimental
physics might be at the "rubber-band ping-pong ball-thrower" level.


That's what your theory says.
Why should I believe it?

Why indeed? Nobody can move a clock at 0.6 c; the best we can do
is shove around a decaying muon.

..and we know that muons travel faster than c wrt the Earth's
surface, don't we Ghost? That's why they reach the surface.

They don't need to travel faster than light to reach the Earth's surface,
just fast enough so that they reach the surface before they decay
(as observed by us, they exhibit a considerable slowdown).

I can't say, however, to be knowledgeable about particle physics
so can't answer objections such as "well, they might have been
generated by an in-air collision", though.

they are.

Oh, OK. You have evidence of this, right?

That's the officially accepted view, Ghost. It isn't my own.



Ghost, there aren't any angles in this experiment. It is linear.
Go pour yourself another glass.

Angle of incidence = Angle of reflection = 90 in that case, then.
You might want to restudy MMX to see why it has a null result.

I know the MMX backwards.

It obviously and conclusively proves that light speed is source dependent.


That is one hypothesis, yes, that is consistent with MMX.



HW.

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm


HW.

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm