On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 17:00:09 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:

In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson)
H@
wrote
on Sun, 18 Sep 2005 09:36:26 GMT
:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 04:00:12 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:


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.

No, it's real speed. You just said so.


Modify your experiment a little. Make A the source.

If A is the source, then the speed of light becomes c-v+adj,
where adj is a temperature-dependent randomization factor.


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

I'm not sure this question makes sense as stated; are you asking:

[1] what C measures as the departing speed of the lightpulse
originating at A, and A?
[2] what C measures as the departing speed of the lightpulse
originating at A, and C?

Neither.
What O measures as the departing speed of A's pulse wrt C?


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.

In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles

wrote
on Sun, 18 Sep 2005 19:00:25 GMT
:

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
message ...
| In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
|
| wrote
| on Sun, 18 Sep 2005 12:06:56 GMT
| :
|
| "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
| message ...
| | 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.
|
| Ok.
|
|
|
| |
| |
| | | | A stationary lightsource
| | |
| | | Stationary with respect to what?
| |
| | NO ANSWER?
| |
| | O, of course, given the conditions above.
|
| Thank you.
|
| | | 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.
| |
|
| NO ANSWER?
|
| O, of course, given the conditions above.
|
| Thank you. The speed of light is therefore proven source
| dependent, in contradiction to the phuckwit Einstein's second
| postulate, "light is always propagated in empty space with a
| definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion
| of the emitting body".
|
| |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | | 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.)
|
| Sagnac makes the marks on your diagram leap off?
| Ride a carousel and look at the diagram as you bounce up
| and down on a wooden horse. Are you sure your diagram
| is no longer valid?
|
| Yes, the light describes a curve in the accelerated reference frame.
| SR is no longer valid in this frame

SR isn't valid in ANY frame on earth, we are all accelerated by gravity.
Call CERN and let them know they have the wrong frequency,
it is now YOUR responsibility, my atheist SRian chum(p).

Well, if I really wanted to I could probably apply a GR
correction, but it's a puny correction.



| Try this experiment:
| Sit on the wooden horse, face straight forward. Do not turn
| your head. Hold a toilet roll core to your eye, close the other eye.
| Look through the toilet roll core. Does the world move?
|
| Depends on how the carousel is moving relative to the world (or,
| if you prefer, how the world is moving relative to the carousel).

I'm asking you what you see. It's no good guessing, this is a real
experiment, not an armchair experiment.

| "Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet
and
| a conductor. The observable phenomenon here depends only on the
relative
| motion of the conductor and the magnet, whereas the customary view
draws
| a sharp distinction between the two cases in which either the one or
the
| other of these bodies is in motion."--Albert's opening paragraph
that he
| quickly forgot about.
| http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
|
| Totally wrong, it turns out. If the magnet is moving in an inertial
| reference frame, that's one thing, but a spinning magnet introduces
| additional effects.

Call Westinghouse, Mather & Platt, General Electric.
Tell them their generators and motors are totally wrong.
Do not use an electric motor at home, do not charge the battery
in your car as you drive it.
Better yet, here's a more comphensive list.
http://www.thomasnet.com/products/ge...4475004-1.html
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...rers&spell= 1
Call them all and save the world.


Exactly. But I think you should do so, first. I'm no leader.



|
| It is also not clear whether the velocity of A relative to B (as
| measured by A) is the same as the velocity of B relative to A
| (as measured by B). This is a fundamental flaw of SRian relativity,
| which is fixable but requires quite a bit of work to express properly.
|
|
|
| What is the CUSTOMARY view, and what is the observable phenomena?
|
| The customary view is the view according to custom. Earth is
| treated as an inertial reference frame;

It can't be, it's a carousel and we should all fly off.

Try standing on a moving carousel without holding onto the horsey.

Or maybe you belong to the Flat Earth Society, you
seem to be that kind of phuckwit.


a ball thrown from a
| carousel is observed *from the carousel* as traversing a curved
| path -- but that's because the carousel itself is rotating. (Of
| course it describes a curved path even in the Earth rest frame,
| but that's because of gravity. Nothing horribly mysterious
| about that.)

Nonsense, I can throw a ball high in the air across the carousel,
ride round to the other side and catch it, the ball went straight up
and down.
A ball thrown from a carousel is observed *from the carousel*
as traversing a STRAIGHT path. Nothing horribly mysterious
about that.

Ah. So therefore rides such as the Roundup won't work, eh?
Or how about the SideWinder? (That one's a little more
complicated as it has two motions.)


|
|
| You can do this without a carousel, assuming you have normal vision
| while sitting at home in a comfy armchair.
| Place your forefinger against the lid of your eye and keeping both
eyes
| open, gently push your eyeball to the side. You will see two worlds.
| It's called seeing double. Don't worry about it, you are ****ing
| with your own brain and it needs a jolt in the gedanken department,
| there are not two worlds.
| The *customary* view of Sagnac is to watch the carousel rotate.
| Relativity of the REAL kind, Galilean, is to view the phenomenon
| while riding the carousel. Your MMX experiment on board the
| carousel will not produce a fringe shift for you, but it will (and
DOES)
| produce a fringe shift for me standing off and watching you ride
| your wooden horse, becasue that IS the Sagnac effect.
|
| Actually, it should produce a fringe shift for me as well.

Ok, so you've found aether on carousels. Well done.
Don't call Stockholm, they'll call you.

They don't know my phone number anyway. :-)


|
| According to the phuckwit Einstein this will make MY watch
| slow down, so if you want to outlive your friends go and watch
| a carousel, my atheist SRian and phuckwit friend, I'm doing you
| a favour and helping you live longer by giving you phuckwit
| advice.
|
| The main problem with this advice is that in order for me to
| gain any significant time savings on a carousel I'd have to
| be squished by centripetal force to a bloody pulp.

I never said it would be significant. This is YOUR belief, atheist
SRian, YOUR religion. Newton and I don't think you can affect
time, but you and Einstein do. I'm giving a phuckwit some
phuckwit advice. If that crushes you to a bloody pulp, it's one
less phuckwit to care about.

|
| Let me know when all your markings jump off the
| diagram and stays at the bus stop, since it will have a
| different result.
|
| The markings went to Venice for vacation a long time ago.
| The bus is stopped somewhere in the yard for maintenance.


Venice Italy or Venice Florida?

Either one. The former is the traditional location for European
vacationeers, as it's nearer. Me, I'm more likely to vacation
at home, which is on the Left Coast.

I've been to one but not the other, I didn't see the marks
from your diagram.

You only thought you didn't. It's a thought experiment, remember? :-)

Androcles.


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

"Henri Wilson" H@.. wrote in message
...
| On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 12:58:14 GMT, "Androcles" Androcles@ MyPlace.org
wrote:
|
|
| "Henri Wilson" H@.. wrote in message
| .. .
| | On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 04:00:11 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
| | wrote:
| |
| | 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:
| |
| |
| | 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?
| |
| | Sorry, Ghost, I underestimated your intentions there.
| |
| | The ballistic theory basically says that light is emitted at c from
| each moving
| | molecule.
| | As you know, starlight emission spectral lines are broadened
because
| of thermal
| | speeds. That also fits the theory. THe R$MS speeds of H in O type
| stars is
| | around 10000 m/sec which is unimaginably fast...0.000033c in fact.
| |
| | I have already provided an example of this in my variable star
| program. The
| | user can plug in an approximate random distribution of molecular
| speeds and see
| | how a brightness curve might be affected. I have used only one
value
| for the
| | mean... about 900m/sec (in the observer direction).
| |
| | Its inclusion makes a considerable difference to brightness curves,
in
| | particular to the distances at which a certain change will occur.
| |
| | I haven't looked closely at this but it is important.
| | One must consider the possibility that the speeds of different
photons
| are
| | somehow unified by gases surrounding the star. ...so it all ends up
| leaving at
| | around c wrt the star centre.
|
| Look closely then. I have.
|
|
|
| |
| | The answer should be obvious to anyone having a passing knowledge
| | of kinetic molecular theory.
| |
| | Thank you Ghost. You are correct..... but I had mentioned this
before.
|
| The answer IS obvious.
| 1) A cool gas will produce spectral emission lines.
| 2) A hot gas will produce shifted spectral emission lines.
|
| Actually, A, it produces broadened lines.

Each ATOM emits only ONE line. The GAS emits a continuous spectrum.
I suppose you could call a continuous spectrum a VERY broad line.


| 3) Shifted lines (both blue and red-shifted) lay side-by-side.
| 4) Lines side-by-side produce a continuous spectrum.
| 5) Ghost is a nitwit, but seems to be educable up to dimwit.
|
| Ghost is one of the more amenable contributors here. Sometimes I think
he is
| wavering. It wouldn't require much to bring him come across to our
side.
|
| 6) Henri is a dimwit, but seems to be educable up to halfwit.
|
| Androcles is a radio engineer who missed out on basic physics
training.
|
| 7) Andersen and moortel are phuckwits, will never make it to nitwit
| but Andersen is a self-confessed tusselad (Norwegian troll) and
| it is clear moortel is also.
| 8) Alan Schwartz is an ineducable double-phuckwit troll.
|
| ....or even worse....
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| | 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
| |
| | There's an awful lot on this NG. Not necessarily yours.
|
| There is an awful lot throughout the world and history, starting with
| earth, air, fire and water as elements, proceeding to Ptolemy's
| epicycles, then John Goodricke's binary eclipses, Maxwell's aether,
| Einstein's cuckoo time, all of which were believed by phuckwits,
| nitwits, dimwits and halfwits. The father of science was Galileo,
| the mathematician Euclid and the true Naturalist was Newton,
| contributions gratefully accepted from Copernicus, Kepler,
| Michelson et al., da Vinci was an engineer and artist.
| Phuckwits and trolls outnumber the halfwit "I have a theory,
| I want you to accept it" brigade of Gaasenbeek and Wilson
| types who wouldn't know what a Seyfert galaxy or dwarf
| cepheid was, one inventing helical waves and the other fairy dust.
| I don't advance any theories, only suggestions based on the
| proven worth of the real genii on whose shoulders I stand
| to see as far as I can, and I've seen planets that no other
| has seen before me. I do not call them Wilson cool heavies
| or Gaasenbeek waves, I call them planets, and neither do
| I call the vector addition of velocities a bat, I am not an
| egotistical halfwit looking for praise.
| Climb on my shoulders instead of my knees, look out
| and gaze with wonder at the universe as it really is, not
| at the universe you would invent.
|
| ...what is it this time, A? ....Vodka, beer, whisky...?

It's a broadened spectral line that covers the entire spectrum,
but you missed out on basic reasoning.
|
| Androcles.
|
|
|
| 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.

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
message ...
| In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
|
| wrote
| on Sun, 18 Sep 2005 19:00:25 GMT
| :
|
| "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
| message ...
| | In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
| |
| | wrote
| | on Sun, 18 Sep 2005 12:06:56 GMT
| | :
| |
| | "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote
in
| | message ...
| | | 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.
| |
| | Ok.
| |
| |
| |
| | |
| | |
| | | | | A stationary lightsource
| | | |
| | | | Stationary with respect to what?
| | |
| | | NO ANSWER?
| | |
| | | O, of course, given the conditions above.
| |
| | Thank you.
| |
| | | | 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.
| | |
| |
| | NO ANSWER?
| |
| | O, of course, given the conditions above.
| |
| | Thank you. The speed of light is therefore proven source
| | dependent, in contradiction to the phuckwit Einstein's second
| | postulate, "light is always propagated in empty space with a
| | definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion
| | of the emitting body".


NO ANSWER?


| | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | 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.)
| |
| | Sagnac makes the marks on your diagram leap off?
| | Ride a carousel and look at the diagram as you bounce up
| | and down on a wooden horse. Are you sure your diagram
| | is no longer valid?
| |
| | Yes, the light describes a curve in the accelerated reference
frame.
| | SR is no longer valid in this frame
|
| SR isn't valid in ANY frame on earth, we are all accelerated by
gravity.
| Call CERN and let them know they have the wrong frequency,
| it is now YOUR responsibility, my atheist SRian chum(p).
|
| Well, if I really wanted to I could probably apply a GR
| correction, but it's a puny correction.

"Insignificant" is the correct term, as of course GR is.

|
|
|
| | Try this experiment:
| | Sit on the wooden horse, face straight forward. Do not turn
| | your head. Hold a toilet roll core to your eye, close the other
eye.
| | Look through the toilet roll core. Does the world move?
| |
| | Depends on how the carousel is moving relative to the world (or,
| | if you prefer, how the world is moving relative to the carousel).
|
| I'm asking you what you see. It's no good guessing, this is a real
| experiment, not an armchair experiment.
|
| | "Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a
magnet
| and
| | a conductor. The observable phenomenon here depends only on the
| relative
| | motion of the conductor and the magnet, whereas the customary
view
| draws
| | a sharp distinction between the two cases in which either the
one or
| the
| | other of these bodies is in motion."--Albert's opening paragraph
| that he
| | quickly forgot about.
| | http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
| |
| | Totally wrong, it turns out. If the magnet is moving in an
inertial
| | reference frame, that's one thing, but a spinning magnet
introduces
| | additional effects.
|
| Call Westinghouse, Mather & Platt, General Electric.
| Tell them their generators and motors are totally wrong.
| Do not use an electric motor at home, do not charge the battery
| in your car as you drive it.
| Better yet, here's a more comphensive list.
| http://www.thomasnet.com/products/ge...4475004-1.html
|
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...rers&spell= 1
| Call them all and save the world.
|
|
| Exactly. But I think you should do so, first. I'm no leader.

Me? Why should I tell them you have no idea what you are babbling about,
they can tell you themselves.



|
|
|
| |
| | It is also not clear whether the velocity of A relative to B (as
| | measured by A) is the same as the velocity of B relative to A
| | (as measured by B). This is a fundamental flaw of SRian
relativity,
| | which is fixable but requires quite a bit of work to express
properly.
| |
| |
| |
| | What is the CUSTOMARY view, and what is the observable
phenomena?
| |
| | The customary view is the view according to custom. Earth is
| | treated as an inertial reference frame;
|
| It can't be, it's a carousel and we should all fly off.
|
| Try standing on a moving carousel without holding onto the horsey.

I think you should do so, first. I'm no leader.

|
| Or maybe you belong to the Flat Earth Society, you
| seem to be that kind of phuckwit.
|
|
| a ball thrown from a
| | carousel is observed *from the carousel* as traversing a curved
| | path -- but that's because the carousel itself is rotating. (Of
| | course it describes a curved path even in the Earth rest frame,
| | but that's because of gravity. Nothing horribly mysterious
| | about that.)
|
| Nonsense, I can throw a ball high in the air across the carousel,
| ride round to the other side and catch it, the ball went straight up
| and down.
| A ball thrown from a carousel is observed *from the carousel*
| as traversing a STRAIGHT path. Nothing horribly mysterious
| about that.
|
| Ah. So therefore rides such as the Roundup won't work, eh?
| Or how about the SideWinder? (That one's a little more
| complicated as it has two motions.)

If you say so, but usually rides are powered by electric motors
and since you claim they don't work I guess you are right.


|
|
| |
| |
| | You can do this without a carousel, assuming you have normal
vision
| | while sitting at home in a comfy armchair.
| | Place your forefinger against the lid of your eye and keeping
both
| eyes
| | open, gently push your eyeball to the side. You will see two
worlds.
| | It's called seeing double. Don't worry about it, you are ****ing
| | with your own brain and it needs a jolt in the gedanken
department,
| | there are not two worlds.
| | The *customary* view of Sagnac is to watch the carousel rotate.
| | Relativity of the REAL kind, Galilean, is to view the phenomenon
| | while riding the carousel. Your MMX experiment on board the
| | carousel will not produce a fringe shift for you, but it will
(and
| DOES)
| | produce a fringe shift for me standing off and watching you ride
| | your wooden horse, becasue that IS the Sagnac effect.
| |
| | Actually, it should produce a fringe shift for me as well.
|
| Ok, so you've found aether on carousels. Well done.
| Don't call Stockholm, they'll call you.
|
| They don't know my phone number anyway. :-)

How sad for you. Print it on the paper you are going to submit
the physics journal explaining how you found aether.

|
|
| |
| | According to the phuckwit Einstein this will make MY watch
| | slow down, so if you want to outlive your friends go and watch
| | a carousel, my atheist SRian and phuckwit friend, I'm doing you
| | a favour and helping you live longer by giving you phuckwit
| | advice.
| |
| | The main problem with this advice is that in order for me to
| | gain any significant time savings on a carousel I'd have to
| | be squished by centripetal force to a bloody pulp.
|
| I never said it would be significant. This is YOUR belief, atheist
| SRian, YOUR religion. Newton and I don't think you can affect
| time, but you and Einstein do. I'm giving a phuckwit some
| phuckwit advice. If that crushes you to a bloody pulp, it's one
| less phuckwit to care about.
|
| |
| | Let me know when all your markings jump off the
| | diagram and stays at the bus stop, since it will have a
| | different result.
| |
| | The markings went to Venice for vacation a long time ago.
| | The bus is stopped somewhere in the yard for maintenance.
|
|
| Venice Italy or Venice Florida?
|
| Either one. The former is the traditional location for European
| vacationeers, as it's nearer. Me, I'm more likely to vacation
| at home, which is on the Left Coast.
|
| I've been to one but not the other, I didn't see the marks
| from your diagram.
|
| You only thought you didn't. It's a thought experiment, remember? :-)

Aha... I think you are a phuckwit, let's try a real experiment.

Androcles.

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

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 23:35:06 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 22:19:00 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" H@.. wrote in message ...

Relativists agree that a third observer can perceive light approaching objects
at speeds other than c.

With a few notable exceptions everyone in the world agrees
that a third party observer can perceive the distance between
light signals and/or objects to shrink or grow at time-rates
between 0 and 2c.
Usually this is called
- closing speed between... , or
- relative speed between... as seen by a third party.


What does relativity say about 'speeds of departure'?

One could decide to reseve "closing speed" for the time rate
of shrinking of the distance between light signals and/or objects,
and "opening speed" for the time rate of growing of the distance


If a photon

forget photons. Take light signals - photons are more complicated.


leaves source at c relative to the source, what departing speed
does a third observer ascribe to it?

As you well know, c+v or c-v, depending on the directions.


If two relatively moving sources emit photons in a particular direction, what
departing speeds does the third observer assign to them....wrt either source?

Everyone, including the third observer, would agree that
an observer riding with the source, measures every signal
to have speed c w.r.t. himself.
As ssen by the thitd party, depending on what you mean
with "a particular direction", the "closing" or "opening"
speeds between either source and either signal could be
c+v, c-v, c+u or c-u. Between the sources u+v or |u-v|.
Between the signals 0 or 2c.


Thank you Dinky.

You have fully supported the notion that the BaT is the main cause of star
brightness variation.

Of course a bright guy like you will immediately realize that:
"Everyone, including the third observer, would agree that
an observer riding with the source, measures every signal
to have speed c w.r.t. himself."
supports the ballistic theory. :-)

I was refering to the second part of that paragraph.


Well done.

desperately done, on your part.


Paul


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.

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 23:46:04 GMT, "Androcles" Androcles@ MyPlace.org wrote:


"Henri Wilson" H@.. wrote in message
.. .
| On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 12:58:14 GMT, "Androcles" Androcles@ MyPlace.org
wrote:

| |
| | Thank you Ghost. You are correct..... but I had mentioned this
before.
|
| The answer IS obvious.
| 1) A cool gas will produce spectral emission lines.
| 2) A hot gas will produce shifted spectral emission lines.
|
| Actually, A, it produces broadened lines.

Each ATOM emits only ONE line. The GAS emits a continuous spectrum.
I suppose you could call a continuous spectrum a VERY broad line.

No A. Forget about continuous spectra.

Any particular spectral emission line will be broadened due to molecular
speeds. The hotter the source, the more the broadening....a pure doppler
effect.



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.

"Henri Wilson" H@.. wrote in message
news | On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 23:46:04 GMT, "Androcles" Androcles@ MyPlace.org
wrote:
|
|
| "Henri Wilson" H@.. wrote in message
| .. .
| | On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 12:58:14 GMT, "Androcles" Androcles@
MyPlace.org
| wrote:
|
| | |
| | | Thank you Ghost. You are correct..... but I had mentioned this
| before.
| |
| | The answer IS obvious.
| | 1) A cool gas will produce spectral emission lines.
| | 2) A hot gas will produce shifted spectral emission lines.
| |
| | Actually, A, it produces broadened lines.
|
| Each ATOM emits only ONE line. The GAS emits a continuous spectrum.
| I suppose you could call a continuous spectrum a VERY broad line.
|
| No A. Forget about continuous spectra.

I can't ignore empirical data. You can, I know.

| Any particular spectral emission line will be broadened due to
molecular
| speeds.

No, no, NO! Any particular spectral emission line will be broadened due
to molecular speeds.

The hotter the source, the more the broadening....a pure doppler
| effect.

No H! The hotter the source, the more the broadening....a pure doppler
effect. Right up until the lines meet and overlap, producing a
continuous spectrum,
but forget about the continuous spectra, it doesn't exist.
Androcles.

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 04:51:46 GMT, "Androcles" Androcles@ MyPlace.org wrote:


"Henri Wilson" H@.. wrote in message
news | On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 23:46:04 GMT, "Androcles" Androcles@ MyPlace.org
wrote:
|
|
| "Henri Wilson" H@.. wrote in message
| .. .
| | On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 12:58:14 GMT, "Androcles" Androcles@
MyPlace.org
| wrote:
|
| | |
| | | Thank you Ghost. You are correct..... but I had mentioned this
| before.
| |
| | The answer IS obvious.
| | 1) A cool gas will produce spectral emission lines.
| | 2) A hot gas will produce shifted spectral emission lines.
| |
| | Actually, A, it produces broadened lines.
|
| Each ATOM emits only ONE line. The GAS emits a continuous spectrum.
| I suppose you could call a continuous spectrum a VERY broad line.
|
| No A. Forget about continuous spectra.

I can't ignore empirical data. You can, I know.

| Any particular spectral emission line will be broadened due to
molecular
| speeds.

No, no, NO! Any particular spectral emission line will be broadened due
to molecular speeds.

The hotter the source, the more the broadening....a pure doppler
| effect.

No H! The hotter the source, the more the broadening....a pure doppler
effect. Right up until the lines meet and overlap, producing a
continuous spectrum,
but forget about the continuous spectra, it doesn't exist.
Androcles.

OK you are talking about thermal radiation in general, with lots of different
atoms and energy levels involved.
In the case of a reasonably cool star, there is usually enough H to create a
number of distinguishable emission lines. Their broadening is dependent on
temperature. That's the point I was trying to make. A cool gas discharge tube
at 40C will produce much finer lines than an arc discharge at 4000C.

I gather that doppler shifts are measured principally with the aid of
absorption lines. The same broadening applies to them. The hotter the star, the
broader the lines.

So it is not surprising that there is a great deal of difficulty in
establishing radial velocities of distant stars.


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.

"Henri Wilson" H@.. wrote in message
...
| On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 04:51:46 GMT, "Androcles" Androcles@ MyPlace.org
wrote:
|
|
| "Henri Wilson" H@.. wrote in message
| news | | On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 23:46:04 GMT, "Androcles" Androcles@
MyPlace.org
| wrote:
| |
| |
| | "Henri Wilson" H@.. wrote in message
| | .. .
| | | On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 12:58:14 GMT, "Androcles" Androcles@
| MyPlace.org
| | wrote:
| |
| | | |
| | | | Thank you Ghost. You are correct..... but I had mentioned
this
| | before.
| | |
| | | The answer IS obvious.
| | | 1) A cool gas will produce spectral emission lines.
| | | 2) A hot gas will produce shifted spectral emission lines.
| | |
| | | Actually, A, it produces broadened lines.
| |
| | Each ATOM emits only ONE line. The GAS emits a continuous
spectrum.
| | I suppose you could call a continuous spectrum a VERY broad line.
| |
| | No A. Forget about continuous spectra.
|
| I can't ignore empirical data. You can, I know.
|
| | Any particular spectral emission line will be broadened due to
| molecular
| | speeds.
|
| No, no, NO! Any particular spectral emission line will be broadened
due
| to molecular speeds.
|
| The hotter the source, the more the broadening....a pure doppler
| | effect.
|
| No H! The hotter the source, the more the broadening....a pure
doppler
| effect. Right up until the lines meet and overlap, producing a
| continuous spectrum,
| but forget about the continuous spectra, it doesn't exist.
| Androcles.
|
| OK you are talking about thermal radiation in general, with lots of
different
| atoms and energy levels involved.

That's what happens in a star shrug.


| In the case of a reasonably cool star, there is usually enough H to
create a
| number of distinguishable emission lines.

http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/ASTR220/OBAFGKM.html
Temperature is on the right.
Hot star is O.
Cool star is M.
I can't see any distinguishable emissions lines in M, but I'm sure you
can,
you have a good imagination.

I can't ignore empirical data. You can, I know.



| Their broadening is dependent on
| temperature. That's the point I was trying to make. A cool gas
discharge tube
| at 40C will produce much finer lines than an arc discharge at 4000C.

I haven't seen you make a point beyond what I already know, but keep
trying.


| I gather that doppler shifts are measured principally with the aid of
| absorption lines.

Correct.

| The same broadening applies to them. The hotter the star, the
| broader the lines.

Sure. So how fast are the stars O, B, A, F,G, K moving?
What about M?

A has a broader H-alpha line than K. (H_alpha is the dark line in the
red)
What doppler shift would you give to A?
I'd give it zero.

| So it is not surprising that there is a great deal of difficulty in
| establishing radial velocities of distant stars.

Well.... This is the principle:
http://instruct1.cit.cornell.edu/cou...y/binary.htmAs I look at this page tonight, I'm not seeing the spectrum.It is gray,with black lines, but I have seen it in full colour and athin blackline where the red and blue dots are moving, so there is bug somewhere.I've now closed the window and reloaded and its fine.Hopefully it works for you.What I will say is this. I have seen the spectrum of Algol, years ago.I did not see the kind of spread that this simulation demonstrates,and my own program (of which you have a copy) deliberatelyexaggerates the shift to make it apparent, but the exaggeration is user selectable.So let us write a simple program that will simulate the shiftand the velocity. I'll use a spreadsheet.f' = f(c+v)/clambda' = c/f'The range of the visible spectrum is 740 nm red to 380 nm violet.740-380 = 360 so you can easily afford 1 pixel per nanometer.H-alpha is at 656 nanometersThat corresponds to a frequency of 4.57317E+14 Hz.Now.... let v = 450 km/secand you should get a 1 pixel shift.Check it out, that's a lot of velocity, 0.0015c, I'm tired tonightand hate ****ing about with lots of zeros.Androcles.

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 00:02:20 GMT, "Androcles" Androcles@ MyPlace.org wrote:


"Henri Wilson" H@.. wrote in message
.. .
| On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 04:51:46 GMT, "Androcles" Androcles@ MyPlace.org
wrote:

| | speeds.
|
| No, no, NO! Any particular spectral emission line will be broadened
due
| to molecular speeds.
|
| The hotter the source, the more the broadening....a pure doppler
| | effect.
|
| No H! The hotter the source, the more the broadening....a pure
doppler
| effect. Right up until the lines meet and overlap, producing a
| continuous spectrum,
| but forget about the continuous spectra, it doesn't exist.
| Androcles.
|
| OK you are talking about thermal radiation in general, with lots of
different
| atoms and energy levels involved.

That's what happens in a star shrug.


| In the case of a reasonably cool star, there is usually enough H to
create a
| number of distinguishable emission lines.

http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/ASTR220/OBAFGKM.html
Temperature is on the right.
Hot star is O.
Cool star is M.
I can't see any distinguishable emissions lines in M, but I'm sure you
can,
you have a good imagination.

They are faint and diffuse but a sensitive photo detector would pick them up.


I can't ignore empirical data. You can, I know.

Never.

| Their broadening is dependent on
| temperature. That's the point I was trying to make. A cool gas
discharge tube
| at 40C will produce much finer lines than an arc discharge at 4000C.

I haven't seen you make a point beyond what I already know, but keep
trying.


| I gather that doppler shifts are measured principally with the aid of
| absorption lines.

Correct.

| The same broadening applies to them. The hotter the star, the
| broader the lines.

Sure. So how fast are the stars O, B, A, F,G, K moving?
What about M?

A has a broader H-alpha line than K. (H_alpha is the dark line in the
red)
What doppler shift would you give to A?
I'd give it zero.

| So it is not surprising that there is a great deal of difficulty in
| establishing radial velocities of distant stars.

Well.... This is the principle:
http://instruct1.cit.cornell.edu/cou...y/binary.htmAs I look at this page tonight, I'm not seeing the spectrum.It is gray,with black lines, but I have seen it in full colour and athin blackline where the red and blue dots are moving, so there is bug somewhere.I've now closed the window and reloaded and its fine.Hopefully it works for you.What I will say is this. I have seen the spectrum of Algol, years ago.I did not see the kind of spread that this simulation demonstrates,and my own program (of which you have a copy) deliberatelyexaggerates the shift to make it apparent, but the exaggeration is user selectable.So let us write a simple program that will simulate the shiftand the velocity. I'll use a spreadsheet.f' = f(c+v)/clambda' = c/f'The range of the visible spectrum is 740 nm red to 380 nm violet.740-380 = 360 so you can easily afford 1 pixel per nanometer.H-alpha is at 656 nanometersThat corresponds to a frequency of 4.57317E+14 Hz.Now.... let v = 450
km/secand you should get a 1 pixel shift.Check it out, that's a lot of velocity, 0.0015c, I'm tired tonightand hate ****ing about with lots of zeros.Androcles.

Mind the ankle....


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.