Re: Basics series proposed

From: Jim Greenfield (greenfield_7_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 10/31/04 

Date: 30 Oct 2004 18:34:17 -0700

"Androcles" <dummy@dummy.net> wrote in message news:<B6Dgd.4062$T34.1531@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>...
> "Jim Greenfield" <greenfield_7@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3c4afb26.0410291750.4af5b1d9@posting.google.com...
> : "Androcles" <dummy@dummy.net> wrote in message
> news:<Domgd.979$T34.377@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>...
> : > "Jim Greenfield" <greenfield_7@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> : > news:3c4afb26.0410281744.3209fdb8@posting.google.com...
> : > : "Androcles" <dummy@dummy.net> wrote in message
> news:<Hs7gd.59614$i02.42772@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>...
> : > : > "Jim Greenfield" <greenfield_7@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> : > What's to say? You are correct, the photon lands at a different
> place
> : > from where it took off. It is quite easy to arrange that to be the
> : > same
> : > place in one frame and two places in the other, and to reverse the
> : > situation.
> : > I did that with Gardner's argument and a GIF to demonstrate it.
> : > http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/gardner.htm

: > : > I'd suggest, for you, that you fully digested the Twin Paradox
> : > : > and Koks' answer:
> : > : >
> : >
> http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_doppler.htmlThen
> : > follow my response to that:
> : > http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/KoksDoppler.htm
:
> : Gardner said:"Of course, the
> : > situation
> : > : is perfectly symmetrical. If you send a beamup and down inside
> your
> : > : ship, he will see its path as a V-shape. Hewill deduce that your
> clock
> : > : is slower."Martin Gardner - The Relativity Explosion, ISBN
> : > : 0-394-72104-7The name for this is "mutual time dilation".I
> wasn't
> : > : easy, but I coaxed Andersen into"That is, we can reverse the
> : > : directions of the frames which is the same as interchanging the
> : > : frames, which - as I have told you a LOT of times, OBVIOUSLY
> will
> lead
> : > : to the transform: t = (tau-xi*v/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) x = (xi -
> : > : v*tau)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) or: tau = (t+xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) xi
> =
> (x
> : > : + vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)" -Paul B. AndersenI have not heard "mutual
> time
> : > : dilation" ever since, so we can kickGardner in the can. He's off
> their
> : > : team now.It does no good me using those equations.I have to get
> a
> : > : relativist to say it. It's a game.How did I do it? By claiming
> t =
> : > : (tau + xi*v/c^2)/sqrt(1+v^2/c^2), directing attention to
> the1+v^2/c^2
> : > : in the denominator. They were hooting and roaring at that,but
> that
> got
> : > : the + in the numerator right past Andersen and intothe goal. No
> more
> : > : "mutual time dilation". It's a game.Have fun!Androcles.:
> : > :
> : > : Races between: photons, the REAL way to prove whether both are
> : > : travelling at the same
> : > : velocity, has NEVER been done.
> : >
> : > Yes it has. Nature does it. You have to learn to read it
> correctly.
> : > Here's light source approaching and receding from us, firing off
> : > photons as it goes. The later, faster photons pass the earlier
> slower
> : > photons along he way and this is the result.
> : > http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/actual_data.htm
> :
> : Trouble (I agree you are correct), is that it is open to spurious
> : arguement, if Doppler is wrongly attributed to the "magic" instead
> of
> : the velocity of the photons. There is the difficulty with a
> continuous
> : stream of photons, to differentiate them. I wish to send two short
> : coded pulses (identities) from (say) Saturn, leaving for earth
> : simultaneously. One is from a stationary source ref us, and the
> other
> : from a moving one. If the velocity difference of the sources could
> be
> : 30km/sec, roughly .5 sec arrival time difference here. Such a huge
> gap
> : with absolutely no ambiguity as to the cause, would sink "c" for
> good,
> : and with it GR and SR.
>
> Expensive.
> Shoot the moon with a laser from the ISS, see the reflection for HST.
> Shoot at moonrise aand again at moonset, as seen from the ISS.
> That's cheap, and adequate. Clocks can measure microseconds easily,
> and 200 of 'em is plenty good enough. We could have it done inside 6
> months with determination. A Saturn shot will take years. Still, I'll
> agree twin Cassini spacecraft using radio ..... wait..... you are on
> to something!
> It can be done NOW!
> http://www.ssd.rl.ac.uk/news/cassini/
> "Cassini is now in orbit around Saturn and sending back data. "
>
> All we need is for Cassini to tell is where and when it is, orbit
> Saturn and do it once again.

We would know what is happening, but the DHR's still have the Doppler
arguement.
What was required, and an opportunity sadly missed, was for Huygen and
Cassini to be passing each other, and exchange a signal synchronising
"send home pulse NOW!!!!!!". We would know that the two signals
originated together in time and location, and arrived here SEPARATELY.
That opportunity has probably been missed, but there will be others
when two potential sources of synchronised transmissions are moving
relative to each other (us), and we can note the arrival separations
of those pulses.
Get on the phone to NASA and see what they can arrange. :-)
>
>
> : >
> : > : Just for fun, start a thread using the speed of sound to show
> length
> : > : contraction.
> : > : Call it "SR for the blind."
> : > : The conclusions drawn from u (air) with echoes, and c
> (aether/magic)
> : > : with mirrors, are just as relevent as light "proving" shortening
> in
> : > : Relativity.
> : > : Do YOU think that a blind man is correct in his measurement of
> the
> : > : moving train?
> :
> : Comment?
> It is quite true that the same equations Einstein used would apply to
> sound also. The only sticking point is the belief system people have
> concerning
> Einstein's "derivation" c = (c+v)/(1+v/c), which they take as a
> postulate,
> the starting point of all there calculations. They say often on this
> newsgroup,
> The second postulate is "lightspeed is invariant in all frames of
> reference".
> That is NOT the second postulate. That is a conclusion drawn from the
> derivation.
> The second postulate (really assumption) is "light is always
> propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
> independent of the state of motion of the emitting body".
>
> If you use their version of the second postulate, Einstein's equation
> 1/2[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] =
> tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
> and his statement:
> "But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured
> in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v, so that x'/(c-v) =
> t."
> would then be:
> 1/2[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/c+x'/c)] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/c)
> and
> "But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured
> in the stationary system, with the velocity (c-v)/(1-v/c) = c, so that
> x'/c = t."
> from which it is impossible to derive the Lorentz Transforms OR
> (c-v)/(1-v/c) = c.
> Einstein deliberately omitted a prime that is essential, he was a
> huckster.
> His equation should be
> 1/2[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0',0,0,t+x'/c+x'/c)] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/c)
> Even if I can't prove he was a criminal, his only defense
> is that he blundered. So which is it? Idiot or Huckster?
> I don't think for one moment he was an idiot.
> I do think his followers are, though.
> Androcles.

BF accuses me of pulling out of arguements when pressed, but when I
put the following to him, he immediately went AWOL:

Take a coordinate A on the x axis at time t. Plot its position after 1
sec at velocity v. Now do exactly the same with coordinate B. Is the
separation A B still the same? (yes) But Bjoern! if the points were
in motion, they should be closer together!!!!!(SR)
The whole scenario is rubbish in SR, which would require A to "know"
that B is co-moving (or vsv)

Have fun- do the "SR for the blind" thread. If I stuffed up the
equations , it might fall a little flat, although I know it works.
 
Jim G
c'=c+v

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Basics series proposed
    ... If the velocity difference of the sources could ... and we can note the arrival separations ... > That is NOT the second postulate. ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
  • Re: Basics series proposed
    ... If the velocity difference of the sources could ... and we can note the arrival separations ... > That is NOT the second postulate. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Define a clock
    ... >> digital clock uses motion to generate events. ... clock was produced by the motion of electrons travelling at some velocity. ... >> I'm not measuring the velocity of the rotation of the Earth. ... >> in relation to the sun. That's the velocity I'm capturing. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • The Making of Observations in Relativistic Systems
    ... identical clock that remained in place. ... gasoline in two different locations (reference frame #1 and reference frame ... relative sizes of the units of measurement for fluid and money at the two ... measurements between reference frames (elevation or velocity). ...
    (sci.physics)
  • The Making of Observations in Relativistic Systems
    ... identical clock that remained in place. ... gasoline in two different locations (reference frame #1 and reference frame ... relative sizes of the units of measurement for fluid and money at the two ... measurements between reference frames (elevation or velocity). ...
    (sci.physics)