Re: OK, I'm Ready For the Patronizing Insults From the Resident Gurus!

From: The Ghost In The Machine (ewill_at_aurigae.athghost7038suus.net)
Date: 09/15/04 

Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 16:00:57 GMT

In sci.physics.relativity, Henri Wilson
<H@.>
 wrote
on Mon, 13 Sep 2004 21:40:17 GMT
<4etak0921fqq36t6vce6q4pqorbapcs2t5@4ax.com>:
> On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 17:55:01 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
> <ewill@aurigae.athghost7038suus.net> wrote:
>
>>In sci.physics.relativity, Granny In Montana
>><ride_a_photon@hotmail.com>
>> wrote
>>on 6 Sep 2004 09:09:41 -0700
>><450db7d8.0409060809.ec640d8@posting.google.com>:
>>> Einstien as I understand it came to many of his astonishing
>>> conclusions with thought experiments. As a non-mathemetician, or
>>> physicist, I was wondering what I would see if I were a suddenly
>>> transformed inot a conscious photon traveling at the speed of light.
>
> Nothing travels at the 'speed of light' or 'anything else'.
> Things travel at speeds RELATIVE to other objects.
>
>>> What would the universe look like?
>
> Just the same as we see it.
>
>>
>>A flat disc, and you won't have time to enjoy it until smashing
>>into something -- or, if you're very lucky, you'll see the
>>Universe die, *then* smash into something. :-)
>>
>>gamma = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
>>x' = (x-vt) / gamma
>>t' = (t-vx/c^2) / gamma
>>
>>As you can see, gamma is infinity when v = c, so one has to proceed
>>with caution here.
>
> Gamma is BULL!!!!!

Tell it to the muons.

>
>>
>>Best bet is to set v = (c - d), where d is a smallish number,
>>then grind it out:

[snip for brevity]

>>However, it turns out that for photons m_0 = 0, and one gets
>>a 0/0 effect, mathematically.
>>
>>>
>>> And if time as we understand it would sort of cease to exist, how
>>> could this be given that in our frame, our conscious awareness, it
>>> takes photons billions of years to reach us from other stellar objects
>>> deep in space, way back in time? They're traveling through
>>> *something,* right?
>>
>>I'm not sure how to characterize this very well; my strength is not
>>in electromagnetics. However, it's clear that lightspeed in vacuum:
>>
>>[1] is source-invariant,
>
> Light moves at 'c' relative to its source.
> What force or 'fairies' would nake it do otherwise?

Light moves at 'c' relative to the source, true. It also
moves at 'c' relative to the destination.

To show otherwise invites some interesting questions regarding
supernovae. It's not exactly an OWLS measurement -- but it's close.

>
>>[2] is *observer*-invariant,
>
> In a medium, maybe.

Well, we're in a medium, at that. Density about 1 atom/cm^3,
generally gaseous (although there is the possibility that it's
just all "dark rocks"), and it may very well be defining
the spacetime metric, stretching it along with everything else
as the Universe expands. However, it's not an aether, at least
in the classical sense (it's certainly not rigid, for starters).

And AFAIK it's not dense enough to complicate OWLS-like
long-range measurements.

>
>>[3] is therefore constant for everybody.
>
> Bull!!! Never proven.
> The ESTABLISHMENT will still not fund OWLS experiments.

It's rather difficult to move things at 10^-4 c, to allow for
a few parts per billion error measurement. The best
example we have around here is the Earth.

>
>>
>>In fact, SR makes the assumption that c is constant for everybody.
>>More on this below.
>
> That's all it is....an assumption ( a wrong assumption).
>
>>
>>>
>>> Thank you for your help with this.
>>>
>>> Granny
>>>
>>> PS -
>>>
>>> Please don't refer me to SR websites as they all seem to be explaining
>>> things to each other like they're some sort of Priests or Shamans with
>>> secret knowledge and special Wheaties Code Rings only THEY can
>>> possess. Knowledge that can't be transmitted strikes me as "fishy."
>>
>>Understanding of the Universe requires a certain amount
>>of foreknowledge, and the ability to observe. However,
>>one interesting observation, a fairly simple one, involves
>>the Crab Nebula -- or any supernova, for that matter.
>>
>>Older theories assumed that, if one accelerates a lightsource, that
>>the lightsource's photons would travel at a different speed than
>>a lightsource standing still; this might be characterized as
>>c'=c+v, where c is measured in observer A's reference frame (he's
>>standing still), and c' is measured by a moving observer B.
>>
>>The Universe of course then bangs photons at us from supernovae
>>to disprove this. :-) The relevant parameters (AFAICT) are
>>these:
>>
>>Crab Nebula
>>distance from Earth: 7,000 light-years (give or take)
>>estimated size: 10 light-years (ditto)
>>time of detonation: 1054 A.D. -- about 950 years ago
>>
>>Now, a naive computation [*] requires that the stuff from the nova
>>during the explosion is traveling at 1/95 c. If one makes
>>another naive assumption, that the shock wave is spherical
>>(which is not a given, BTW; it depends on how fast the
>>star was rotating prior to the bang, though it's probably
>>close enough as a first approximation), then one gets into
>>the interesting issue of how fast light travels from the leading
>>edge of the sphere pointing at us, versus the trailing edge.
>>
>>Light from the leading edge, according to Newtonian theory, is
>>traveling at c + 1/95 c, for a transit time of 6927 years.
>>The trailing edge emits light that, from our vantage-point,
>>is traveling at c - 1/95 c, for a transit time of 7074.5 years.
>>Therefore, the ancients would first see a dim blue dot, which
>>would slowly brighten as it turns greener/whiter, then the
>>intensity would dim again as it turns redder, in the space
>>of about 147.5 years.
>>
>>That's the theory.
>
> Crap!

Did you have an alternate explanation for the phenomenon?

>
>>
>>The actual observations, however, indicate that the star was
>>observed one day to be stunningly bright -- to be seen in
>>daytime for a few weeks, in fact! -- and lasted for about
>>a year before fading into relative obscurity. (It wasn't
>>until the telescope was invented that anyone could see the
>>glowing remnants, which are interesting in their own right.)
>>
>>This indicates something seriously wrong with Newtonian light theory. :-)
>
> Crap!!!
> If you start with Einsteiniana, you can easily prove Einsteiniana
> is right. That's called circularity

True enough. But am I starting with "Einsteiniana"?

>
>>
>>There are other confirmations -- Mercury's orbital perturbations
>>is a classic one, and an observation regarding sensitized

[snip for brevity]

>>I could if you wish derive the Lorentz Transformation
>>from the requirement that light has a constant speed in
>>all inertial reference frames. It's a bit tricky, and
>>mostly theoretical, but it turns out the Universe is happy
>>to oblige SR and GR in this case, though Gravity Probe B's
>>results will be interesting, as one other prediction of GR
>>is that the Earth's mass is twisting the local spacetime
>>metric by an extremely tiny amount -- so tiny that the
>>experiment will have to go on for about 2 years to make
>>sufficiently accurate measurements to verify it.
>>
>>Either way, science advances.
>
> Crap, Ghost.
>
> Science has stagnated for 100 years because of Einsteiniana.

You're right; we should all go back to Newton and forego
such modern amenities such as particle accelerators.
After all, the Accelerator Adjusters has been suppressing
proof that c' = c+v for generations. There's also the
Muon Madmen, who are of course frantically swapping muons
(with a modern supersonic fighter and a Leyden jar it's
actually fairly simple) over scientific installations
attempting to measure them.

And I won't tell you anything about the Supernova Spindoctors.
(They won against the Accelerator Adjusters in a friendly
inter-disciplinary soccer game the other day, BTW. But
I can't tell you where.)

>
> HW.
>
> www.users.bigpond.com 

-- 
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: speed, size, time
    ... you would return to your previous earth normal height ... > length because of its orientation with the direction of earth's travel ... Science is about measurement, modelling, and prediction. ... For all speeds, both the lab and the moving frame measure the interval of ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Relativity for the Masses
    ... If you could actually travel faster than light, ... make relative speeds compatible with ... Our clocks should measure our time on Earth ... dimensions is because our particles string could be coupled ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: speed, size, time
    ... Both camps do all that is required to predict measurement. ... > the line of travel cannot be determined. ... For the non moving frame, ... It is consistent with being turned into "electron ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Sliding Rod Experiment [PD investigates]
    ... different speeds? ... Or would it prove that the measurement ... acceleration force feels a change in his absolute speed. ... appears to be inconsistent with the laws of physics. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Sliding Rod Experiment [PD investigates]
    ... different speeds? ... Or would it prove that the measurement ... acceleration force feels a change in his absolute speed.. ... appears to be inconsistent with the laws of physics. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading