Re: velocity of light.
From: Robert B. Winn (rbwinn3_at_juno.com)
Date: 09/15/04
- Previous message: TMG: "Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation"
- Maybe in reply to: Robert B. Winn: "velocity of light."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 14 Sep 2004 20:20:37 -0700
"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message news:<gmK1d.31123$D7.13871@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> "Robert B. Winn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
> news:a17e5e0e.0409140645.251bcc79@posting.google.com...
> > "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
> news:<GMp1d.29903$D7.9464@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> > > "Robert B. Winn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
> > > news:a17e5e0e.0409130609.10bf5b88@posting.google.com...
> > > > "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
> news:<ia51d.28722$D7.15746@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> > > > > "Robert B. Winn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:a17e5e0e.0409100643.c248e1c@posting.google.com...
> > > > > > "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
> news:<SFd0d.25556$D7.24662@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> > > > > > > "Robert B. Winn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:a17e5e0e.0409091854.57abc2e2@posting.google.com...
> > > > > > > > "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
> news:<8H40d.25048$D7.15087@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> > > > > > > > > "Robert B. Winn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > news:a17e5e0e.0409090642.4a8a1222@posting.google.com...
> > > > > > > > > > "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
> news:<RcQ%c.24279$D7.11017@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> > > > > > > > > > > "Robert B. Winn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > > > news:a17e5e0e.0409080601.1a0d8c6d@posting.google.com...
> > > > > > > > > > > > "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
> news:<JTs%c.23060$D7.10947@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > "Robert B. Winn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> news:a17e5e0e.0409070601.21a2e296@posting.google.com...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in
> message
> news:<V%6%c.21791$D7.11375@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Robert B. Winn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in
> message
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> news:a17e5e0e.0409060701.4a78bb97@posting.google.com...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in
> > > message
> > > news:<Tls_c.19605$D7.8652@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "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.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe that is because SR is not really a
> theory
> about
> > > > > > > > > light -
> > > > > > > > > see
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0110076.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Robert B. winn
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is it a theory about then? Einstein said
> it
> was
> > > > > a
> > > > > description of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > transmission of light.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Einstein is out of date. It is a theory about
> space-time
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > symmetry
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implied by the POR. Read the link I gave;
> > > specifically
> > > what
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > say
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > about the speed of light:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'We have found the form of transformation
> functions
> > > > > between
> > > > > two
> > > > > > > > > > > frames
> > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the standard configuration. The only remaining
> > > unknown
> > > is
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > value
> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > universal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > constant m. From the transformation functions we
> can
> make a
> > > > > > > > > number
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > conclusions, for example about possibility of
> time
> dilation.
> > > > > > > > > Then we
> > > > > > > > > could
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use time dilation experiments (involving decay
> of
> stationery
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > moving
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mesons) to measure the value of m. Another (but
> not
> > > the
> > > only)
> > > > > > > > > way to
> > > > > > > > > find a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > value of mis by deriving velocity addition
> formula
> > > and
> > > observing
> > > > > > > > > > > that if
> > > > > > > > > > > 2
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > c - = m and an object moves with speed c in one
> > > inertial
> > > frame,
> > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moves with the same speed in all others. This
> would
> enable
> > > > > > > us to
> > > > > > > identify c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as the speed of light in vacuum. But I stress
> once
> again
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > experiments could be used to find the value of
> the
> constant.'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also see the following post of Tom Roberts:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Many+criticisms+of+Special+Relativity+center+on+the+%22assumption%22+that+group:sci.physics.*&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=sci.physics.*&selm=54jfst%24glp%40ssbunews.ih.lucent.com&rnum=3
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Specifically note the introduction:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'Many criticisms of Special Relativity center on
> the
> "assumption"
> > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > speed of light is constant in all reference
> frames.
> The
> > > > > > > > > derivation
> > > > > > > > > given
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > here does not make that assumption; the
> existence of
> > > a
> > > universal
> > > > > > > > > > > speed
> > > > > > > > > > > (c)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is a natural consequence of the Postulates
> forming
> > > the
> > > basis
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > derivation. General symmetry properties of
> space-time
> > > > > are
> > > > > sufficient to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > determine the equations of the Lorentz
> > > Transformation
> > > [to
> > > > > > > within
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > topological choice - see below]. The bottom line
> is
> > > that
> > > it
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > IMPOSSIBLE to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > formulate an alternative to Special Relativity,
> > > while
> > > obeying
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > observed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > symmetries of space-time and agreeing with the
> experimental
> > > > > > > > > evidence
> > > > > > > > > [see
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > below about the limitations of the symmetry
> > > postulates
> > > used
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > derivation].
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This article will, I hope, show why physicists
> > > believe
> > > in
> > > > > > > > > Special
> > > > > > > > > Relativity
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (within its applicable domain), and are
> extremely
> sceptical
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > "alternative
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > descriptions". Historically, it took a long time
> for
> physicists
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > accept
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Special Relativity. Even today, the compelling
> > > > > derivation
> > > > > given
> > > > > > > > > here
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > usually not presented in textbooks;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't know why.'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Robert B. Winn
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > You guys are a great deal like the people in
> medical
> > > > > science.
> > > > > They
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > have all this technology. Given time, they think
> they
> could
> > > > > > > find
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > way to make people live forever. All they would
> have
> to
> > > > > do is
> > > > > grow
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > body parts and just replace whatever goes wrong.
> They
> > > > > never
> > > > > consider
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the fact that they have gone insane.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Have you something specific to discuss relating to
> > > physics
> > > or do
> > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > simply
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wish to bandy around generalities?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or take a look at the legal profession. They
> have
> turned
> > > > > > > crime
> > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > a real money maker. As long as crime is
> entertaining
> and
> > > > > > > popular,
> > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > they have to do is tell people that they do not
> have
> the
> > > > > right
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > trial by jury so that there will be plenty of
> > > criminals,
> > > and
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > money
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > rolls in. Never mind that the Constitution of the
> United
> > > > > > > States
> > > > > > > says
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that in all criminal prosecutions, the defendant
> has
> the
> > > > > right
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > trial by jury. How are lawyers going to make any
> money if
> > > > > the
> > > > > people
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > are allowed to participate in the legal system at
> a
> level
> > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > could do some good?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > See above comment.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > But the philosophers behind the whole thing are
> the
> scientists.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Science is not philosophy - see
> http://www.friesian.com/feynman.htm
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > We
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > are just this close to finding m, whatever that
> is.
> So I
> > > > > ask,
> > > > > doesn't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > a photon going in the -x direction have a velocity
> of -c.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > It does.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, we can't answer that.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I have.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > We are just this close to finding m.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > What is this m your harping about?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Even if you find m, you will still have to
> find
> > > > > something
> > > > > else.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your equations are wrong. You have a distance
> contraction
> > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > count a photon going in the -x direction as having
> a
> > > > > velocity
> > > > > of c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > instead of -c.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > That is simply not true.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > So go ahead and do whatever you are doing. I will
> go
> do
> > > > > some
> > > > > welding.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Do whatever you like - but try to think more clearly
> if
> you
> > > > > wish
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > understand SR.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Robert B. Winn
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Well, here is the problem I see. You have the
> Lorentz
> equations.
> > > > > > > > > > > > You keep time positive for a photon going in the
> negative
> direction by
> > > > > > > > > > > > the following device
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > (t-vx/c^2)
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Where did you get that equation from - the back of a
> corn
> > > flakes
> > > packet? -
> > > > > > > > > > > the lorentz transforms can be found here:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/ltrans.html
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > By squaring -c, you get c^2.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Gee whiz what a mind blowing observation - we have the
> new
> > > > > Gauss, no
> > > > > wait he
> > > > > > > > > > > is greater than Gauss.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >What you are hiding from yourselves is
> > > > > > > > > > > > that if a photon is going in the -x direction, then
> > > x= -ct.
> > > So as
> > > > > > > > > > > > compared with a photon going in the +x direction,
> x=ct,
> > > the
> > > expression
> > > > > > > > > > > > would become
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > (t+vx/c^2)
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Derivirving drivel from drivel.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > The correct equation for transforming the x coordinate
> is x
> =
> > > > > x -
> > > > > vt/sqrt
> > > > > > > > > > > (1 - v2/c2). And guess what happens if v = c or - c;
> you
> > > have
> > > divide by
> > > > > > > > > > > zero. Wow what a fantastic discovery - even more
> mind-blowing
> > > > > than
> > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > observation. Maybe I am the next Gauss - can hardly
> wait
> > > for my
> > > fields
> > > > > > > > > > > medal fame and fortune.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Bill.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > In other words, t' is a longer time in the negative
> > > direction.
> > > So
> > > > > > > > > > > > when you say, time is passing more slowly in the
> moving
> > > frame
> > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > reference, what does it mean? Time is also passing
> more
> > > > > quickly
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > the moving frame of reference if you use a photon
> going in
> the -x
> > > > > > > > > > > > direction to measure it.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I hav epinted you to a derivation that take sinto
> account
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Robert B. Winn
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Well, now you are pretending that (t-vx/c^2) is not in the
> Lorentz
> > > > > > > > > > equation for t'. Here, let me post the entire equation.
> > > > > > > > > > t'=(t-vx/c^2)/ sqrt (1-v^2/c^2)
> > > > > > > > > > Do you see the term, (t-vx/c^2)?
> > > > > > > > > > It is right after the equal sign.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Do you see sqrt (1-v^2/c^2)? - it is right under the
> division
> > > sign -
> > > and
> > > > > > > > > means t' does not equal t-vx/c^2. Learn some basic math.
> > > > > > > > Well, I got the result from using basic math. Oh, I forgot,
> you
> > > > > > > > people panic if you do not see a distance contraction.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So you avoid answering the question. I will repeat it - how can
> you
> claim
> > > > > > > t' = (t-vx/c^2) from the Lorentz transforms when it says
> t'=(t-vx/c^2)/sqrt
> > > > > > > (1-v^2/c^2)?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Bill
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Robert B. winn
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I didn't get it from the Lorentz equations. I got it from x'=x-vt
> and
> > > > > > the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment.
> > > > >
> > > > > As usual for your type you avoid answering the question. You sated
> 'Well,
> > > > > now you are pretending that (t-vx/c^2) is not in the Lorentz
> equation
> for
> > > > > t'.' The Lorentz transformation is t' = (t-vx/c^2)/sqrt (1 -
> v2/c2).
> How
> > > > > is it possible for (t-vx/c^2) to equal (t-vx/c^2)/sqrt (1 - v2/c2).?
> > > > >
> > > > > Bill
> > > > >
> > > > > > Robert B. Winn
> > > >
> > > > It is not possible.
> > > > The Lotentz equations are not the correct
> > >
> > > That is not what you stated. Again I repeat what you said: 'Well, now
> you
> > > are pretending that (t-vx/c^2) is not in the Lorentz equation for t'.'.
> The
> > > Lorentz transformation is t' = (t-vx/c^2)/sqrt (1 - v2/c2). How is it
> > > possible for (t-vx/c^2) to equal (t-vx/c^2)/sqrt (1 - v2/c2).?
> > >
> > > Each time you avoid all I will do is keep repeating the question.
> > > Eventually one of us will tire but not before it is obvious to anyone
> > > reading your drivel the type of person you are.
> > >
> > > Bill
> > >
> > Bill,
> > This is a very good question, and I am surprised that a bona fide
> > scientist would even be able to think of it. Here is the answer.
> > Take two one foot rulers and place them beside each other. Notice
> > that the marks on one ruler align with the marks on the other ruler.
> > Now move one ruler slowly to the right. We will call the moving ruler
> > K' and the ruler that is not moving K.
> > Notice that because the velocity of K' relative to K is very slow,
> > any difference between
> >
> > x'=x-vt and x'= (x-vt)/sqrt (1-v^2/c^2)
> > is essentially negligible.
>
> You did not say essentially negligible - you said the same.
>
> The term in the denominator of
> > (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) is really sqrt(1- almost 0). Now, the fastest
> > observable moving object in our solar system is the planet Mercury,
> > which has a velocity of 30 miles per second. If something is moving
> > this fast, then the difference between x'=x-vt and
> > x'=(x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) might be significant. It was by computing
> > the orbit of Mercury that scientists were able to determine that the
> > Lorentz equations give a more accurate answer than the Galillean
> > transformation equations. However, in the Galillean transformation
> > equations, t'=t, whereas in my equations, t'=t(c-v)/c for a photon
> > going in the +x direction. So the orbit of Mercury does not disprove
> > my equations the way it disproves the Galillean transformation
> > equations.
> > Anyway, experiment with the two rulers, and I am sure you will
> > grasp the concept after a while.
>
> Again you avoided answering the question. Or do you admit what all who have
> read you rubbish already know? - your ability to think clearly is not in
> evidence.
>
> As I said one will eventually tire of this drivel - in this case it is me.
> But is now obvious to all your lack of ability to think. Not that it was
> not already in evidence as the following post form 2000 indicates:
>
> 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
>
> Bill
>
> > Robert B. Winn
Well, that was before I figured out velocity of light. That did not
happen until about a year ago. Back then I just knew that you were
going to have trouble enforcing your distance contraction. Now I can
tell you why.
Robert B. Winn
- Previous message: TMG: "Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation"
- Maybe in reply to: Robert B. Winn: "velocity of light."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
