Re: velocity of light.
From: Bill Hobba (bhobba_at_rubbish.net.au)
Date: 09/09/04
- Next message: Ray Fischer: "Re: Kerry and the Iraq War"
- Previous message: Eric Gisse: "Re: Paul Andersen's Famous Fairies."
- In reply to: Robert B. Winn: "Re: velocity of light."
- Next in thread: Robert B. Winn: "Re: velocity of light."
- Reply: Robert B. Winn: "Re: velocity of light."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 03:25:56 GMT
"Robert B. Winn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:a17e5e0e.0409080603.3a3242b@posting.google.com...
> "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
news:<6Ns%c.23058$D7.1398@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> > "Robert B. Winn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
> > news:a17e5e0e.0409070529.710dd7aa@posting.google.com...
> > > "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
> > news:<6J6%c.21769$D7.11324@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> > > > "Robert B. Winn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:a17e5e0e.0409060647.218506c9@posting.google.com...
> > > > > "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
> > news:<mQP_c.20771$D7.18154@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> > > > > > "Robert B. Winn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:a17e5e0e.0409042014.d65e823@posting.google.com...
> > > > > > > "Androcles" <androc1es@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in
message
> > news:<Tin_c.542$c44.5610542@news-text.cableinet.net>...
> > > > > > > > "Robert B. Winn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > news:a17e5e0e.0409040932.3025fd53@posting.google.com...
> > > > > > > > | With regard to the problem presented by the
Michelson-Morley
> > > > > > > > | experiment, it appears that initially Albert Einstein was
> > trying
> > to
> > > > > > > > | work the problem correctly, as is evidenced by his
description
> > of
> > the
> > > > > > > > | problem using the term "velocity of light". However, he
seems
> > to
> > have
> > > > > > > > | abandoned that concept and started the c=speed of light
> > philosophy
> > > > > > > > | which still dominates the thinking of scientists today.
> > Scientists
> > > > > > > > | trying to describe transmission of light invairably
describe
> > light
> > > > > > > > | from an observer to a mirror by c-v and the return light
by
> > c+v.
> > This
> > > > > > > > | neglects the fact that relative to two frames of reference
> > such as
> > > > > > > > | Einstein described, a reflected photon has a velocity of c
one
> > way
> > and
> > > > > > > > | a velocity of -c the other way relative to the two frames
of
> > reference
> > > > > > > > | that Einstein described. Scientists so far have declined
to
> > discuss
> > > > > > > > | this.
> > > > > > > > | Robert B. winn
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What is there to discuss?
> > > > > > > > If you claim that you travel from NewYork to Los Angeles in
6
> > hours
> > > > at
> > > > some
> > > > > > > > velocity v= 500 mph, and back again at -v = -500 mph, then
you
> > also
> > reverse
> > > > > > > > the direction so that LosAngeles to New York = -3000 miles
and
> > > > > > > > t = -d/-v = d/v and t remains positive.
> > > > > > > > This is not a problem. What is a problem is
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The Seven Deadly Sins of Special Relativity.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > For quotations following, reference:
> > > > > > > > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
> > > > > > > > ("On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" by Albert
Einstein)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 1) "light is always propagated in empty space with a
definite
> > velocity c
> > > > > > > > which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting
> > body",
> > > > > > > > a totally unproven assumption without any evidence to
support
> > it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 2) "In agreement with experience we further assume the
quantity
> > > > > > > > 2AB/(t'A-tA) = c to be a universal constant- the velocity of
> > light
> > > > in
> > > > empty
> > > > > > > > space.",
> > > > > > > > an admitted assumption that is quite worthless when there is
any
> > > > > > > > relative motion between A and B, yet essential to the
derivation
> > of
> > the
> > > > > > > > remainder of Einstein's nonsense.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 3) The equation
> > > > > > > > ½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] =
> > > > tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
> > > > ,
> > > > > > > > the ½ of which is derived from 2) above and is tantamount to
> > saying
> > > > > > > > (1/3 + 2/3)/2 = 1/3.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 4) The missing 0' from that equation, since x' = x-vt, hence
0'
> > =
> > 0-vt,
> > > > > > > > and the equation should be
> > > > > > > > ½[tau(-vt,0,0,t)+tau(-vt,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] =
> > tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
> > > > > > > > at the very least.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 5) The further assumption "IF we place x' = x-vt ... "
without
> > considering
> > > > > > > > IF we place x' = x+vt, from which we derive (using
Einstein's
> > method)
> > > > > > > > tau = (t+xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> > > > > > > > xi = (x + vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)" -Paul B. Andersen
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 6) The statements
> > > > > > > > "But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k,
> > > > > > > > when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity
> > c-v..."
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > "It follows, further, that the velocity of light c cannot be
> > altered
> > by
> > > > > > > > composition with a velocity less than that of light. For
this
> > case
> > > > we
> > > > obtain
> > > > > > > > V = (c+w)/(1+w/c) = c."
> > > > > > > > which are contradictory, the first being Galilean, the
second
> > being
> > > > > > > > contrary to the vector addition of velocities, an axiom of a
> > vector
> > space.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 7) The lack of a check to verify the theory is
self-consistent
> > by
> > feeding
> > > > > > > > the new PoR given in 6) into the equation given in 3) and
> > finding a
> > total
> > > > > > > > failure.
> > > > > > > > Check:
> > > > > > > > (t1-t)/(t2-t)*[tau(-vt,0,0,t)+tau(-vt,0,0,t+x'/V+x'/V)] =
> > tau(x',0,0,t+x'/V)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Androcles.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Well, the problem I see is the fact that if a photon is sent
to a
> > > > > > > mirror and then is reflected back the way it came, then if the
> > mirror
> > > > > > > is placed in the direction of motion of a set of coordinates
K'
> > which
> > > > > > > is in motion with velocity v relative to a set of coordinates
K at
> > > > > > > rest, then the photon has a velocity of c relative to the sets
of
> > > > > > > coordinates on its way to the mirror and a velocity of -c
after it
> > is
> > > > > > > reflected by the mirror relative to K and K'. I do not see
any
> > > > > > > scientists working the problem this way.
> > > > > > > Tell me how you do it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > c----------------------->l
> > > > > > > ______K___K'__________________l
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Once the photon is reflected by the mirror, what is its
> > velocity
> > > > > > > relative to K and K'?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > C.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If that does not conform to your intuition then guess what -
your
> > intuition
> > > > > > is wrong. But that is not a problem because physics is not
about
> > your
> > > > > > intuition. BTW please be aware SR is not really a theory about
> > light -
> > see
> > > > > > http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0110076.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bill
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Robert B. winn
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, I am a welder with a high school education, so I just try to
> > > > > figure out what scientists are doing. I used the answer you gave
for
> > > > > twenty years until one day I looked at the problem and decided
that
> > > > > the velocity of the photon relative to K and K' after it is
reflected
> > > > > is -c. Now scientists do not want to talk to me about it.
> > > >
> > > > What do scientists not want to talk to you about? The fact you wish
to
> > harp
> > > > on about a miner point of semantics (of course it is -c and not c -
if
> > you
> > > > consider direction; the point being its magnitude is c if you do not
> > > > consider such) is not conducive to intellectual discourse. If you
fail
> > to
> > > > see that such is irrelevant to the validity of SR (ie it is
perfectly
> > > > compatible with it); then that is nothing to do with a high school
> > education
> > > > it has to do with a failure to understand SR.
> > > >
> > > > Bill
> > > >
> > > > > Robert B. Winn
> > >
> > > Well, if it is -c, why isn't it used as -c? If it is -c, then it
> > > eliminates the distance contraction.
> >
> > It does no such thing.
> >
> > Bill
> >
> > > Robert B. Winn
>
> It does if you use the correct equations.
Dirk has produced evidence you have you have been posting the same rubbish
for years and undoubtedly been given the same answers. It is obvious you
are one of those people who think everyone else is wrong; I am the only one
who has seen the truth; there is no way I can make an error; I am perfect
and if I fail to understand something then it must be wrong - heaven forbid
something could be lacking on my part. Your answers lie not with continued
posting here but with seeking the help of a professional therapist; in
particular you are a victim of 'Unskilled and Unaware of It: How
Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated
Self-Assessments' - http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html.
Bill
> Robert B. Winn
- Next message: Ray Fischer: "Re: Kerry and the Iraq War"
- Previous message: Eric Gisse: "Re: Paul Andersen's Famous Fairies."
- In reply to: Robert B. Winn: "Re: velocity of light."
- Next in thread: Robert B. Winn: "Re: velocity of light."
- Reply: Robert B. Winn: "Re: velocity of light."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
