Re: velocity of light.
From: Robert B. Winn (rbwinn3_at_juno.com)
Date: 09/15/04
- Next message: TMG: "Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation"
- Previous message: TMG: "Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation"
- In reply to: Bill Hobba: "Re: velocity of light."
- Next in thread: Robert B. Winn: "Re: velocity of light."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 14 Sep 2004 20:16:35 -0700
"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message news:<CvK1d.31127$D7.5489@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> "Robert B. Winn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
> news:a17e5e0e.0409140625.4e830f67@posting.google.com...
> > "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
> news:<YZp1d.29912$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
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Robert+B.+Winn+2000&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=sci.physics.*&selm=136f266c.29277011%40usw-ex0108-057.remarq.com&rnum=7
>
> 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
So as I understand it, you are here to enforce a distance contraction.
Well, my suggestion would be to take those two rulers and move one
slowly relative to the other, and then make sure the distance
contracts. I don't think it is going to happen on its own.
Robert B. winn
- Next message: TMG: "Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation"
- Previous message: TMG: "Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation"
- In reply to: Bill Hobba: "Re: velocity of light."
- Next in thread: Robert B. Winn: "Re: velocity of light."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
