jOEY-space (nothing FiSCHy about it). - Physics Banter

A Physics forum. Physics Banter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

		Home » Physics Banter forum » Physics Newsgroups » The Theory of Relativity
jOEY-space (nothing FiSCHy about it).

Mark Forums Read

Tags: fischy, joeyspace, nothing

jOEY-space (nothing FiSCHy about it).

« OTHERwise EMPTY fields. | Distance in Space-time »

#1

Old

February 7th 06 posted to alt.bible.prophecy,alt.bible,sci.physics.relativity

brian a m stuckless

external usenet poster

Posts: 3,468

Default

jOEY-space (nothing FiSCHy about it).

wrote: George Dishman wrote:
wrote: George Dishman wrote:
" wrote in message
oups.com...
George Dishman wrote:
" wrote in message
oups.com...
...
And if ANY assumption is incorrectly based (eg constant c),
then it follows that ALL derivitives are false.

Right, and the way we see that is if the values
derived from the theory in an experminet fail to
match the actual results.

wrote in message
ups.com...

...
Subjectivity is a huge stumbling block, but the main obstruction to
physical study advancement is the blind, thoughtless and uncritical
acceptance of empirical data as analysed slavishly per AEism.

That approach is the fundamental basis of all
modern science, not just relativity. It is
essentially just what you were saying in the
previous post, any incorrect theory can be
eliminated because predictions derived from it
will not match the empirical data.

George

In "theory" :-)

In practice too. That's why people keep doing
more and more detailed tests. Any discrepancy
will lead to a better theory but so far none
has been found. Cosmology offers hopes though.

Trouble is, DHRism takes to itself the rigth to use a variable length
ruler, AND a variable rate watch, when processing/viewing such data.

Nah, you're thinking of aether theory.

Which, as Henry points out regularly, is what you espouse,

And every time he does I point out why he is wrong,
but still he repeats something he knows to be untrue.

whether you
recognise that or not. Hence your immediate retreat to air and water
scenarios below.

I hope to translate it to simple parallels that you can
understand. They aren't perfect but you might learn
enough from them.

They are not "parallels"; they are not even reasonable analogies.
Compression fronts in air, or displacements of water, have no
relationship to photons travelling through/across a vacuum.

$$ jOEY-space (nothing FiSCHy about it).
[Typo] "..photons travelling through/across [BOSONs]".
[Typo] "..photons travelling through/across [h*fL/nA]".
[Typo] "..photons travelling through/across [BOSE-ONs]".
[Typo] "..photons travelling through/across [DiRAC SEA]".
[Typo] "..photons travelling through/across [hbar*c/rA]".
[Typo] "..photons travelling through/across [AMBiENT-ONs]".
[Typo] "..photons travelling through/across [AMBiENT-hbar-ONs]".
[Typo] "..photons travelling through/across [STANDiNG PHONONs]".
[Typo] "..photons travelling through/across [OTHERwise vacuum]".
[Typo] "..photons travelling through/across [OTHERwise] vacuum".
[Typo] "..photons travelling through/across [OTHERwise] a vacuum".
[Typo] "..photons travelling through/across [OTHERwise EMPTY space]".
$$ ```Brian A M Stuckless, Ph.T (Tivity).

You should therefore stay with space, where velocities CAN alter,
rather than the artificial realm of aethers (air/water)
THAT is why you keep being accused of being a defacto aetherialist.

The "Theory" therefore has an inbuilt fail-safe against falsification.

Garbage, the MMX could have falsified it as could
thousands of other tests. If the result of the MMX
had been as expected, SR would probably never have
been produced.

What a bemusing "experiment" that was! Sets out to look for something;
doesn't succeed;

But it did succeed Jim, they successfully measured
the speed. The surprise was the value they got.

claims victory for discovering nothing.

I see you are another one who doesn't understand that
the significance of a measured zero value can be just
as great as a non-zero value.

Mushrooms don't exist! I went looking last spring, and didn't find a
one!

v = fu this is accepted anywhere,

Of course.

ACCEPT if v happens to be c,

Nope, speed = frequency * wavelength still holds
for light.

What is this "speed", all of a sudden? Are you being cute?

I made the mistake of thinking you understood what you
had written. "v" is an algebraic symbol which represents a
physical quantity. What quantity did you think the letter
stood for?

v is the term; let's stick to that, and avoid any confusion ;-)

Well if you want to avoid confusion, learn that it is
customary to define your symbols when writing an
equation by adding "where f is the speed" or whatever
immediately afterwards. So tell me, what did the letters
v, f and u mean in your equation?

v straight line displacement per time
f actions at a point per time
u distance between bodies (photons/bullets) or waves

..........so bring on the algebra!
IIIIIIIIiiiiiiiiifffffffffffffff v (read c) is unalterring,
when f alters per measurement OR observation, WHAT is the physical
cause of the reciprocal alteration to u?
Below, you change the muzzle velocity (double the powder charge)
I doubt that nature knows to do that. Which fairy tells the gun when to
fire, and how much powder to use, in order that c at target is always
the same, no matter that the gun/plane alters motion ref said target?

wherein such case, the f or u alters magically and
automatically whenever one or the other alters.

Listen to a train whistle, the frequency changes
as it passes. Wiggle your finger in the bath and
note the wavelength, then move your hand along
smoothly while wiggling at the same rate and
you'll see the wavelength is changed. There's
nothing magical about these effects Jim.

I was on the beach; the wavelength close in was a lot shorter than at
the surf line;
the velocity of the waves at the shore was reduced also; the FREQUENCY
was the same.
THINK about that.

Delighted, it proves wrong what you say later since the
speed has changed without causing a change of frequency.

And do you think that this COULD be the case, if that speed did NOT
alter?
Hint: If the waves still hit the beach at (sic c) with that observed
shorter wavelength the frequency at the beach would be greater than
that further out.
But this is aether (water), so let's drop it. It doesn't help SR, or
understanding of WHY frequencies in vacuum are noticed to alter when
the source/detector moves.

It supports the standard equation

speed = frequency * wavelength

If the speed is reduced and no wave crests vanish
then the wavelength gets shorter. It's obvious really,
at lower speed, one crest moves a shorter distance
before the next arrives. Imagine standing some way
out in the water. One wave pases you. The distance
it has moved when the next arrives is its speed
multiplied by the time since it passed, and that gives
you the wavelength.

And this would have what to do with light, which does NOT alter
according to SR.
This analogy shoots down constant c.. Can you not "see" that?

It all comes back to what you said above.

And if ANY assumption is incorrectly based (eg constant c), then it
follows that ALL derivitives are false.

In a simple straight line setup at constant speed,
the prediction for Doppler shift derived from Ritz's
ballistic theory is

f'/f = (c+v)/c

and that derived from SR is

f'/f = sqrt((c+v)/(c-v))

Ives and Stillwell measured it and found the result
matched SR, ballistic theory was wrong. The instrument
measuring the shift is at rest so shrinkages don't
come into it.

The same goes for the Sagnac experiment which
Henry and I have been discussing, the result
matches SR while ballistic theory says the
devices shouldn't operate at all. You can't
have it both ways Jim, either you derive your
ideas from the results or forget the scientific
approach and settle for religion.

George

Back to the machine gun:
It fires 10 per sec at muzzle, which is fixed by the mechanism, and is
not effected by changes in motion. With a bullet velocity (muzzle) of
1,000m/s, ...

The rounds strike the target at 1m/s at a rate of 10 rnd/s.

What?

Now fit the gun on a jet, and approach the target at 1,000m/sec (some
jet!)

The rounds now strike at 2km/s and a rate of 20 rnd/s

Yes

Now, instead of putting the gun on a jet, keep the gun
still but use high-velocity rounds with a muzzle velocity
of 2km/s. The rounds also strike at 2km/s but the rate
is just 10 rnd/s. Changing the speed does not change
the rate.

The target will receive a one second burst in .5 secs!
The bullets are STILL 100m apart!
The gun was STILL firing at 10 per sec!
Conclusion: The increased frequency (blue light) was due to the
_increased velovity_ of the bullets (photons)

Wrong conclusion, the changed rate is because the jet
is closer to the target so it takes less time for each
round to get from gun to target than the previous round.
We are back to your problems with cause and effect Jim,
the motion of the jet is the common cause for the two
effects of increased speed and increased rate.

Read this last again!
The bullets are faster YOUR STATEMENT
The frequency is higher " "
.and you have NOT claimed that the wavelength has alterred!

Correct Conclusion:
"The motion of the jet is the common cause......" for the increased
velocity AND frequency.

For SR c constant to work, George, that gun has to slow its rate of
fire, as soon as the plane moves. It doesn't happen, and neither does a
light source alter the wavelength of its output when it changes motion.

Don't ask me to believe the impossible.

You are the one who is asking me to believe the
impossible Jim, that light behaves like rounds from a
machine gun. I am only asking you to explain why you
continue to believe that in spite of what you said quoted
at the top of this reply when experiments contradict it.

Give me a physical CAUSE for that gun to alter its fire rate and muzzle
velocity, as does a light source similarly NEED to do so to maintain
the claimed constant c, and I will be baptised forthwith.

Bye
Jim G
c'=c+v

George
Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment.
jOEY-space (nothing FiSCHy about it).

Report this post as spam, offensive or inappropriate

Reply With Quote

Ads

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts vB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
EMPTiNESS ..OUTside of POiNTs"; Fischy (2006).	brian a m stuckless	Physics - General Discussion	1	March 16th 06 10:08 AM
"The EMPTiNESS ..in between POiNTs", Fischy (2005).	brian a m stuckless	Physics - General Discussion	1	March 13th 06 10:44 PM
jOEY-space (nothing FiSCHy about it).	brian a m stuckless	Physics - General Discussion	0	February 7th 06 03:16 PM
Space-time (vs. "space-space") visualization by embedding in 3-D space	mot12345@alexandria.ucsb.edu	The Theory of Relativity	1	May 3rd 05 01:45 AM
Space-time (vs. "space-space") visualization by embedding in 3-D space	mot12345@alexandria.ucsb.edu	The Theory of Relativity	6	January 14th 05 04:40 PM

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:35 AM.