Re: velocity of light.
From: Bill Hobba (bhobba_at_rubbish.net.au)
Date: 09/14/04
- Next message: Richard Crawford: "Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation"
- Previous message: George Hammond: "Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation"
- 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."
- Reply: Robert B. Winn: "Re: velocity of light."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 22:44:50 GMT
"Robert B. Winn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:a17e5e0e.0409140625.4e830f67@posting.google.com...
> "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
news:<YZp1d.29912$D7.27877@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> > "Robert B. Winn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
> > news:a17e5e0e.0409130629.3b099451@posting.google.com...
> > > "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
> > news:<7651d.28717$D7.27862@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> > > > "Robert B. Winn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:a17e5e0e.0409121214.47102651@posting.google.com...
> > > > > "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
> > news:<sQX0d.28475$D7.25311@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> > > > >
> > > > > > > I have done it about a hundred times. It is not hard to do.
We
> > have
> > > > > > > a set of coordinates K at rest, we have a set of coordinates
K' in
> > > > > > > motion in the +x direction relative to K with a velocity of v.
> > > > > > > When the origins of K and K' coincide at t=t'=0, two photons
are
> > > > > > > emitted, one in the +x direction and one in the -x direction.
The
> > > > > > > coordinates of the photon in K and K' are given by
> > > > > > > x'=x-vt
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In other words, for either photon, x=wt, x'=wt', where w is
the
> > > > > > > velocity of the photon. For the photon going in the +x
direction,
> > > > > > > w=c.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ct'=ct-vt
> > > > > > > t'=t(c-v)/c
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > For the photon going in the -x direction, w= -c
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -ct'=-ct-vt
> > > > > > > ct'=ct+vt
> > > > > > > t'=t(c+v)/c
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ok let us accept your equation and suppose t' = t(c+v)/c. Now
let
> > us
> > > > > > examine what experiment tells us:
> > > > > > http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf. Oops -
looks
> > like
> > > > > > your wrong. What is the Greeks said - something along the lines
of
> > the
> > > > > > observation is wrong - so much for the observation.
> > > > > Bill,
> > > > > Thank you for sharing your ideas. It is easy to say oops. I
> > > > > could say 1+1=2, oops, looks like this equation is wrong. What
> > > > > exactly is it that you see as being wrong?
> > > >
> > > > The clock corrections the experiment conformed were calculated not
using
> > the
> > > > above equation - they were calculated using t' = x - vx/sqrt (1-v2)
(in
> > > > untis where c =1). x - vx/sqrt (1-v2) doe not equal your equation,
> > which in
> > > > untis c = 1 is t' = t (1 -v). Thus you equation is experimentally
shown
> > to
> > > > be false.
> > >
> > > If c=1, then
> > >
> > > c=1=x/t = x'/t' = (x-vt)/(t-vt/c) =
> > > (x-vt)sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)/(t-vx/c^2)/(1-v^2/c^2)
> > > In either case, if x'=1, t'=1. Either set of equations shows the
> > > correct relationship between x' and t'. The Lorentz equations show a
> > > distance contraction in the primed coordinates.
> >
> > Afraid not. X' = X - VT implies no length contration - the lorentz
> > transforamtions do.
> >
> > >
> > > > > > Also you might like to apply your equation to Maxwell's
equations
> > and
> > see if
> > > > > > they remain invariant - see
> > > > > > http://vishnu.mth.uct.ac.za/omei/gr/chap1/node2.html. Looks
like
> > the
> > POR
> > > > > > goes out the door.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Or your equation x' = x - vt. Let us see what than implies for
a
> > rod at
> > > > > > time zero - why it means x' = x ie length contrition does not
occur.
> > Hold
> > > > > > on would that not mean the Lorentz Fitzgerald contraction did
not
> > occur
> > and
> > > > > > the Michelson Morley orpiment would give a positive result? Or
if
> > that
> > is
> > > > > > too recent for you what about the experiment of Fizeau?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bill
> > > > > Well, you got it partly right. It does mean that a length
contraction
> > > > > does not occur. No, it does not mean the Michelson-Morley
experiment
> > > > > gives a positive result. These equations do not indicate that an
> > > > > ether exists. All they show is that light has a speed of c in
both
> > > > > frames of reference, and no distance contraction takes place.
> > > >
> > > > If you do not accept the MM experiment then explain the experiment
of
> > > > Fizeau - http://www.bartleby.com/173/13.html.
> > > >
> > > > Bill
> > >
> > > Fizeau even uses the same equation I do to show velocity of light
> > >
> > > x'=wt'
> >
> > No one is denying that equation - what in being denied is your rubbish
that
> > it is compatible x' = x - vt. The experiment of Fizeau and the MM
> > experiment show otherwise.
> >
> > Bill
>
> Well, I don't really think so. Time is either relative or it is not.
> If time is relative, then it fits the equation x'=x-vt just as well as
> it does x'=(x'-vt)gamma.
Again the refusal to address the question and divert the issue. The issue
was not the relativity of time - the issue was length contraction.
However as motioned in another thread eventually one tires of the same
evasive drivel. People have seen enough to know the crank you so obviously
are as evidenced by posts over many years
It is not supervising he is documented on Dirks pages -
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html.
Bill
The only thing is that this equation is not
> as compatible to absolute time ideas as the Lorentz equations, so
> scientists do what is easy for them.
> How do you claim that the experiment of Fizeau and the
> Michelson-Morley experiment show otherwise?
> Einstein used the Lorentz equations for years without the concept
> of a distance contraction until another scientist showed him that the
> equations required a distance contraction. The distance contraction
> comes from the term 1/(1-v^2/c^2). If the equations work without that
> term, then there is no distance contraction.
> Robert B. winn
- Next message: Richard Crawford: "Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation"
- Previous message: George Hammond: "Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation"
- 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."
- Reply: Robert B. Winn: "Re: velocity of light."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
