In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson)
H@
wrote
on Fri, 16 Sep 2005 23:21:44 GMT
:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 04:00:11 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:

In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson)
H@
wrote
on Wed, 14 Sep 2005 21:43:32 GMT
:
Relativists agree that a third observer can perceive light approaching objects
at speeds other than c.
What does relativity say about 'speeds of departure'?

SR says all lightspeed is c. Ballistic theory says
lightspeed from a lamp *cannot* be c, unless the lamp's
temperature is at absolute zero.

You really do have a vivid imagination Ghost.
Have you ever thought of writing SciFi?

And you are slightly clueless. Has it occurred to you *why* I
state that ballistic theory cannot have lightspeed c emitting
from a hot lamp, hot star, or even an atom vibrating in deep space?

The answer should be obvious to anyone having a passing knowledge
of kinetic molecular theory.

As for sci-fi, I've written some. I can't say it's good and it's
certainly unpublished, but it's on my Website. :-P

[rest snipped]

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

In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson)
H@
wrote
on Fri, 16 Sep 2005 23:25:39 GMT
:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 04:45:59 +0200, YBM wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote :
Thank you Dinky.

You have fully supported the notion that the BaT is the main cause of star
brightness variation.
You aren't totally useless after all!

You've just shown how illiterate you are in basic geometry, algebra
and physics (not speaking about common sense).

How do you feel now ?

Moron, your religion accepts 'closing speeds' that are not c.

Surely the same approach produces 'departing speeds' that are also not c.

Entirely possible and easy, in fact.


C
==v A*--------- c B



O

Let O be a distance D from A, who is moving at velocity v
at right angles to O at a certain time 0.
Stationary mirrors at B and C aid O's measurements.
A stationary lightsource right next to C of a different color
is also available. This lightsource emits a pulse towards
both C and B at exactly the time A passes by C.

O will see a lightpulse from C at time d/c, and a lightpulse
from B at time l_B/c + sqrt(l_B^2 + d^2)/c, where l_B is
the distance from C to B and c is nominal lightspeed. Since
none of the equipment is moving O can easily calibrate
his equipment.

What is the velocity, *as calculated by O*, between the
lightpulse and A? Answer: c+v.

[rest snipped]

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

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
message ...
| In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson)
| H@
| wrote
| on Fri, 16 Sep 2005 23:21:44 GMT
| :
| On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 04:00:11 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
| wrote:
|
| In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson)
| H@
| wrote
| on Wed, 14 Sep 2005 21:43:32 GMT
| :
| Relativists agree that a third observer can perceive light
approaching objects
| at speeds other than c.
| What does relativity say about 'speeds of departure'?
|
| SR says all lightspeed is c. Ballistic theory says
| lightspeed from a lamp *cannot* be c, unless the lamp's
| temperature is at absolute zero.
|
| You really do have a vivid imagination Ghost.
| Have you ever thought of writing SciFi?
|
| And you are slightly clueless.

LOL! Coming from you that's a laugh.


| Has it occurred to you *why* I
| state that ballistic theory cannot have lightspeed c emitting
| from a hot lamp, hot star, or even an atom vibrating in deep space?

Who can fathom how someone else's mind works? Why WOULD you state
something so stupid?

| The answer should be obvious to anyone having a passing knowledge
| of kinetic molecular theory.

Oh, we are supposed to guess now, it being "obvious"...

My guess would be that you are phuckwit.
Androcles.

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
message ...
| In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson)
| H@
| wrote
| on Fri, 16 Sep 2005 23:25:39 GMT
| :
| On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 04:45:59 +0200, YBM wrote:
|
| Henri Wilson wrote :
| Thank you Dinky.
|
| You have fully supported the notion that the BaT is the main cause
of star
| brightness variation.
| You aren't totally useless after all!
|
| You've just shown how illiterate you are in basic geometry, algebra
| and physics (not speaking about common sense).
|
| How do you feel now ?
|
| Moron, your religion accepts 'closing speeds' that are not c.
|
| Surely the same approach produces 'departing speeds' that are also
not c.
|
| Entirely possible and easy, in fact.
|
|
| C
| ==v A*--------- c B
|
|
|
| O
|
| Let O be a distance D from A, who is moving at velocity v
| at right angles to O at a certain time 0.
| Stationary mirrors at B and C aid O's measurements.

Stationary with respect to what?



| A stationary lightsource

Stationary with respect to what?


right next to C of a different color
| is also available. This lightsource emits a pulse towards
| both C and B at exactly the time A passes by C.
|
| O will see a lightpulse from C at time d/c, and a lightpulse
| from B at time l_B/c + sqrt(l_B^2 + d^2)/c, where l_B is
| the distance from C to B and c is nominal lightspeed.

lightspeed with respect to what?


Since
| none of the equipment is moving

Moving with respect to what?


|O can easily calibrate
| his equipment.
|
| What is the velocity, *as calculated by O*, between the
| lightpulse and A? Answer: c+v.

Yep. Quite right. So how come you are an atheist SRian?
Is it because you believe in an absolutely stationary space
for your mirrors B and C to be stationary in?

Androcles.

In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles

wrote
on Sat, 17 Sep 2005 07:32:55 GMT
:

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
message ...
| In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson)
| H@
| wrote
| on Fri, 16 Sep 2005 23:21:44 GMT
| :
| On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 04:00:11 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
| wrote:
|
| In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson)
| H@
| wrote
| on Wed, 14 Sep 2005 21:43:32 GMT
| :
| Relativists agree that a third observer can perceive light
approaching objects
| at speeds other than c.
| What does relativity say about 'speeds of departure'?
|
| SR says all lightspeed is c. Ballistic theory says
| lightspeed from a lamp *cannot* be c, unless the lamp's
| temperature is at absolute zero.
|
| You really do have a vivid imagination Ghost.
| Have you ever thought of writing SciFi?
|
| And you are slightly clueless.

LOL! Coming from you that's a laugh.


| Has it occurred to you *why* I
| state that ballistic theory cannot have lightspeed c emitting
| from a hot lamp, hot star, or even an atom vibrating in deep space?

Who can fathom how someone else's mind works? Why WOULD you state
something so stupid?

| The answer should be obvious to anyone having a passing knowledge
| of kinetic molecular theory.

Oh, we are supposed to guess now, it being "obvious"...

I would have thought it was. Perhaps I thought wrong.

An atom or perhaps a molecule (if the star is cool enough)
emits a light photon. Coming from the atom, it's obviously
coming out at speed c. The problem is that the atom or
molecule is also moving.


My guess would be that you are phuckwit.
Androcles.


I do have a question for you regarding lightemission from a star.

What is the speed of light from the star? What, precisely,
is emitting the light?

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

In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles

wrote
on Sat, 17 Sep 2005 07:43:38 GMT
:

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
message ...
| In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson)
| H@
| wrote
| on Fri, 16 Sep 2005 23:25:39 GMT
| :
| On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 04:45:59 +0200, YBM wrote:
|
| Henri Wilson wrote :
| Thank you Dinky.
|
| You have fully supported the notion that the BaT is the main cause
of star
| brightness variation.
| You aren't totally useless after all!
|
| You've just shown how illiterate you are in basic geometry, algebra
| and physics (not speaking about common sense).
|
| How do you feel now ?
|
| Moron, your religion accepts 'closing speeds' that are not c.
|
| Surely the same approach produces 'departing speeds' that are also
not c.
|
| Entirely possible and easy, in fact.
|
|
| C
| ==v A*--------- c B
|
|
|
| O
|
| Let O be a distance D from A, who is moving at velocity v
| at right angles to O at a certain time 0.
| Stationary mirrors at B and C aid O's measurements.

Stationary with respect to what?

O.




| A stationary lightsource

Stationary with respect to what?


right next to C of a different color
| is also available. This lightsource emits a pulse towards
| both C and B at exactly the time A passes by C.
|
| O will see a lightpulse from C at time d/c, and a lightpulse
| from B at time l_B/c + sqrt(l_B^2 + d^2)/c, where l_B is
| the distance from C to B and c is nominal lightspeed.

lightspeed with respect to what?

O.



Since
| none of the equipment is moving

Moving with respect to what?

O.



|O can easily calibrate
| his equipment.
|
| What is the velocity, *as calculated by O*, between the
| lightpulse and A? Answer: c+v.

Yep. Quite right. So how come you are an atheist SRian?
Is it because you believe in an absolutely stationary space
for your mirrors B and C to be stationary in?

Correct, as far as this problem is concerned. If O is moving
with respect to the luminiferous aether the results would
be quite different.


Androcles.


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

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
message ...
| In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
|
| wrote
| on Sat, 17 Sep 2005 07:32:55 GMT
| :
|
| "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
| message ...
| | In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson)
| | H@
| | wrote
| | on Fri, 16 Sep 2005 23:21:44 GMT
| | :
| | On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 04:00:11 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
| | wrote:
| |
| | In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson)
| | H@
| | wrote
| | on Wed, 14 Sep 2005 21:43:32 GMT
| | :
| | Relativists agree that a third observer can perceive light
| approaching objects
| | at speeds other than c.
| | What does relativity say about 'speeds of departure'?
| |
| | SR says all lightspeed is c. Ballistic theory says
| | lightspeed from a lamp *cannot* be c, unless the lamp's
| | temperature is at absolute zero.
| |
| | You really do have a vivid imagination Ghost.
| | Have you ever thought of writing SciFi?
| |
| | And you are slightly clueless.
|
| LOL! Coming from you that's a laugh.
|
|
| | Has it occurred to you *why* I
| | state that ballistic theory cannot have lightspeed c emitting
| | from a hot lamp, hot star, or even an atom vibrating in deep
space?
|
| Who can fathom how someone else's mind works? Why WOULD you state
| something so stupid?
|
| | The answer should be obvious to anyone having a passing knowledge
| | of kinetic molecular theory.
|
| Oh, we are supposed to guess now, it being "obvious"...
|
| I would have thought it was. Perhaps I thought wrong.
|
| An atom or perhaps a molecule (if the star is cool enough)
| emits a light photon. Coming from the atom, it's obviously
| coming out at speed c. The problem is that the atom or
| molecule is also moving.

That's not a problem, that's a continous spectrum. Gases
emit discrete frequencies in the lab.
http://users.forthnet.gr/ath/jgal/sp...ope/amici.html

There is some overexposure in the images, I asked Ioannis
about that.





|
|
| My guess would be that you are phuckwit.
| Androcles.
|
|
| I do have a question for you regarding lightemission from a star.
|
| What is the speed of light from the star? What, precisely,
| is emitting the light?

The atoms or ions, even some molecules. Each atom will emit
light at c relative to itself, c+v relative to you,
a lot of randomly moving atoms will produce a lot of random shift,
that will produce a continuous spectrum, the cooler outer layers
that are moving more slowly will absorb at a characteristic wavelength,
that will be shifted by the motion of the star as a whole.
You can see the slower moving atoms in a cooler star, it has less
spread of the shift.
http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/ASTR220/OBAFGKM.html

Androcles

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
message ...
| In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
|
| wrote
| on Sat, 17 Sep 2005 07:43:38 GMT
| :
|
| "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
| message ...
| | In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson)
| | H@
| | wrote
| | on Fri, 16 Sep 2005 23:25:39 GMT
| | :
| | On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 04:45:59 +0200, YBM wrote:
| |
| | Henri Wilson wrote :
| | Thank you Dinky.
| |
| | You have fully supported the notion that the BaT is the main
cause
| of star
| | brightness variation.
| | You aren't totally useless after all!
| |
| | You've just shown how illiterate you are in basic geometry,
algebra
| | and physics (not speaking about common sense).
| |
| | How do you feel now ?
| |
| | Moron, your religion accepts 'closing speeds' that are not c.
| |
| | Surely the same approach produces 'departing speeds' that are
also
| not c.
| |
| | Entirely possible and easy, in fact.
| |
| |
| | C
| | ==v A*--------- c B
| |
| |
| |
| | O
| |
| | Let O be a distance D from A, who is moving at velocity v
| | at right angles to O at a certain time 0.
| | Stationary mirrors at B and C aid O's measurements.
|
| Stationary with respect to what?
|
| O.
Why isn't O moving through empty space, taking his mirrors
with him? Print your diagram and take it on a bus with you,
let me know if you've added the speed of the bus to O
and everything else, or if A jumped off the paper and got
left behind at the bus stop.

| | A stationary lightsource
|
| Stationary with respect to what?

NO ANSWER?



|
| right next to C of a different color
| | is also available. This lightsource emits a pulse towards
| | both C and B at exactly the time A passes by C.
| |
| | O will see a lightpulse from C at time d/c, and a lightpulse
| | from B at time l_B/c + sqrt(l_B^2 + d^2)/c, where l_B is
| | the distance from C to B and c is nominal lightspeed.
|
| lightspeed with respect to what?
|
| O.

Print your diagram and take it on a bus with you,
let me know if you've added the speed of the bus to lightspeed
and everything else, or if lightspeed jumped off the paper and got
left behind at the bus stop.


|
|
|
| Since
| | none of the equipment is moving
|
| Moving with respect to what?
|
| O.


Print your diagram and take it on a bus with you,
now all the equipment is moving. Does it still work?

|
|
| |O can easily calibrate
| | his equipment.
| |
| | What is the velocity, *as calculated by O*, between the
| | lightpulse and A? Answer: c+v.
|
| Yep. Quite right. So how come you are an atheist SRian?
| Is it because you believe in an absolutely stationary space
| for your mirrors B and C to be stationary in?
|
| Correct, as far as this problem is concerned. If O is moving
| with respect to the luminiferous aether the results would
| be quite different.

Let me know when all your markings jump off the
diagram and stays at the bus stop, since it will have a
different result.
Androcles.

In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles

wrote
on Sun, 18 Sep 2005 04:34:00 GMT
:

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
message ...
| In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
|
| wrote
| on Sat, 17 Sep 2005 07:43:38 GMT
| :
|
| "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
| message ...
| | In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson)
| | H@
| | wrote
| | on Fri, 16 Sep 2005 23:25:39 GMT
| | :
| | On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 04:45:59 +0200, YBM wrote:
| |
| | Henri Wilson wrote :
| | Thank you Dinky.
| |
| | You have fully supported the notion that the BaT is the main
cause
| of star
| | brightness variation.
| | You aren't totally useless after all!
| |
| | You've just shown how illiterate you are in basic geometry,
algebra
| | and physics (not speaking about common sense).
| |
| | How do you feel now ?
| |
| | Moron, your religion accepts 'closing speeds' that are not c.
| |
| | Surely the same approach produces 'departing speeds' that are
also
| not c.
| |
| | Entirely possible and easy, in fact.
| |
| |
| | C
| | ==v A*--------- c B
| |
| |
| |
| | O
| |
| | Let O be a distance D from A, who is moving at velocity v
| | at right angles to O at a certain time 0.
| | Stationary mirrors at B and C aid O's measurements.
|
| Stationary with respect to what?
|
| O.
Why isn't O moving through empty space, taking his mirrors
with him? Print your diagram and take it on a bus with you,
let me know if you've added the speed of the bus to O
and everything else, or if A jumped off the paper and got
left behind at the bus stop.

O is moving on a bus somewhere in Europe, running round a traffic
circle. The traffic circle is securely attached to a point on
the Earth. The Earth is rotating at a speed of approximately
72.722 microradians/second. The Earth is also revolving around
the Sun at a speed of about 199.1 nanoradians per second. The
Sun's velocity around the galactic Core is unknown; the
galactic velocity relative to the Local Group is unknown; the
Local Group is moving with respect to... somebody.

Yet the light source is also rigidly attached to the bus, and
is therefore stationary with respect to O.


| | A stationary lightsource
|
| Stationary with respect to what?

NO ANSWER?

O, of course, given the conditions above.




|
| right next to C of a different color
| | is also available. This lightsource emits a pulse towards
| | both C and B at exactly the time A passes by C.
| |
| | O will see a lightpulse from C at time d/c, and a lightpulse
| | from B at time l_B/c + sqrt(l_B^2 + d^2)/c, where l_B is
| | the distance from C to B and c is nominal lightspeed.
|
| lightspeed with respect to what?
|
| O.

Print your diagram and take it on a bus with you,
let me know if you've added the speed of the bus to lightspeed
and everything else, or if lightspeed jumped off the paper and got
left behind at the bus stop.


|
|
|
| Since
| | none of the equipment is moving
|
| Moving with respect to what?
|
| O.


Print your diagram and take it on a bus with you,
now all the equipment is moving. Does it still work?

No, it does not. (Sagnac's Effect.)


|
|
| |O can easily calibrate
| | his equipment.
| |
| | What is the velocity, *as calculated by O*, between the
| | lightpulse and A? Answer: c+v.
|
| Yep. Quite right. So how come you are an atheist SRian?
| Is it because you believe in an absolutely stationary space
| for your mirrors B and C to be stationary in?
|
| Correct, as far as this problem is concerned. If O is moving
| with respect to the luminiferous aether the results would
| be quite different.

Let me know when all your markings jump off the
diagram and stays at the bus stop, since it will have a
different result.
Androcles.



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

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 04:00:12 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:

In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson)
H@
wrote
on Fri, 16 Sep 2005 23:25:39 GMT
:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 04:45:59 +0200, YBM wrote:


You've just shown how illiterate you are in basic geometry, algebra
and physics (not speaking about common sense).

How do you feel now ?

Moron, your religion accepts 'closing speeds' that are not c.

Surely the same approach produces 'departing speeds' that are also not c.

Entirely possible and easy, in fact.


C
==v A*--------- c B



O

Let O be a distance D from A, who is moving at velocity v
at right angles to O at a certain time 0.
Stationary mirrors at B and C aid O's measurements.
A stationary lightsource right next to C of a different color
is also available. This lightsource emits a pulse towards
both C and B at exactly the time A passes by C.

O will see a lightpulse from C at time d/c, and a lightpulse
from B at time l_B/c + sqrt(l_B^2 + d^2)/c, where l_B is
the distance from C to B and c is nominal lightspeed. Since
none of the equipment is moving O can easily calibrate
his equipment.

What is the velocity, *as calculated by O*, between the
lightpulse and A? Answer: c+v.

Very good Ghost.......
...and that is the REAL speed between the light pulse and A.

......but this is still 'closing speed', Ghost.

Modify your experiment a little. Make A the source.

Question: what is the 'departing speed' of A's pulse wrt C?


[rest snipped]


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

Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.