Re: Building a Light Clock
From: Androcles (dummy_at_dummy.net)
Date: 12/09/04
- Next message: Sam Wormley: "Re: How to Measure OWLS Equal to c Experimentally."
- Previous message: George Hammond: "Re: God=G_uv Comments of Isham Dembski Unwin"
- In reply to: The Ghost In The Machine: "Re: Building a Light Clock"
- Next in thread: The Ghost In The Machine: "Re: Building a Light Clock"
- Reply: The Ghost In The Machine: "Re: Building a Light Clock"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 16:49:27 GMT
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
message news:383l82-v9l.ln1@sirius.athghost7038suus.net...
> In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
> <dummy@dummy.net>
> wrote
> on Wed, 08 Dec 2004 19:05:54 GMT
> <mgItd.134341$38.29842@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
>>
>> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote
>> in
>> message news:eigj82-22h.ln1@sirius.athghost7038suus.net...
>>> In sci.physics.relativity, jahn
>>> <susysewnshow@yahoo.com.au>
>>> wrote
>>> on Wed, 8 Dec 2004 06:25:31 -0500
>>> <31o6meF3e1cmaU1@individual.net>:
>>>>
>>>> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net>
>>>> wrote
>>>> in message news:1ifi82-g48.ln1@sirius.athghost7038suus.net...
>>>>> In sci.physics.relativity, jahn
>>>>> <susysewnshow@yahoo.com.au>
>>>>> wrote
>>>>> on Tue, 7 Dec 2004 04:59:06 -0500
>>>>> <31ld81F3d5dv3U1@individual.net>:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net>
>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>> news:qotf82-mds.ln1@sirius.athghost7038suus.net...
>>>>> >> In sci.physics.relativity, jahn
>>>>> >> <susysewnshow@yahoo.com.au>
>>>>> >> wrote
>>>>> >> on Sun, 5 Dec 2004 11:17:20 -0500
>>>>> >> <31gqlcF3ba32dU1@individual.net>:
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > "Androcles" <dummy@dummy.net> wrote in message
>>>>> >> > news:v5Gsd.102344$38.6638@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>>>> >> >>
>>>>> >> >> Your spikey nose lacks a fingernail to detect the fiducial
>>>>> >> >> grooves, or
>>>>> >> >> your slide rule is of the printed wooden variety. I
>>>>> >> >> recommend
>>>>> >> >> an
>>>>> >> >> upgrade to plastic. Either that or wear your specs. BTW, it
>>>>> >> >> isn't
>>>>> >> >> true that guys don't make passes at girls who wear glasses.
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > It must be... I've tried everything else.
>>>>> >> > http://www.smittenkitten.org/glasses.jpg
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > Sue...
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> No no...that's rose-colored *glasses*. Not hair.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> :-)
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Indeed!
>>>>> > http://brotherhug.com/family/laura/slides/0301%20Laura%20with%20funny%20glasses.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>> Awwwww...they're so cute at that age. ;-) Of course
>>>>> for me that was more than 4 decades ago.
>>>>>
>>>>> *creee-e-e-e-e-e-eak*
>>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>> > You guys are looking better already.
>>>>> > If I don a cap and gown, do ya think It'll help
>>>>> > Androcles keep his cubes and squares straight?
>>>>>
>>>>> Depends on the cap and gown. A standard matriculation
>>>>> affair might impress him, but one might also have
>>>>> a jester's cap and a ballroom gown, or a baseball
>>>>> cap and a birthday gown (I'm assuming it's the female
>>>>> variant of the birthday suit), neither of which somehow
>>>>> would quite work as well...
>>>>>
>>>>> You'd have to ask him.
>>>>>
>>>>> As it is, I think SR's fairly well shown here; one
>>>>> nicely repeatable experiment, for instance, involves
>>>>> decaying (and moving) pi_0 mesons. Another involves
>>>>> positrons and electrons, one of which is moving
>>>>> faster. Still another involves a supernovae, although
>>>>> that's more an observation than an experiment.
>>>>
>>>> Howz about a link for that :nicely "repeatable
>>>> experiment" ?
>>>
>>> Best I can do is provided in Google Scholar:
>>>
>>> http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v83/i3/p685_1
>>>
>>> which pulls up Lederman, Booth, Byfield, and Kessler in 1951.
>>>
>>> Not quite, nor is
>>>
>>> http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v83/i6/p1085_1
>>>
>>> which is Wiegand's experiments in 1951 on pi+ lifetime.
>>>
>>> Grrr.
>>>
>>> I'll have to refer you to Sam Wormley, who has a list of
>>> significant light speed measurements and other such
>>> experimental results.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sigh... Yes, Androcles is a stubborn Brit and like
>>>> most Brits ya can't tell 'em that matriculation will
>>>> grow hair on their palms.
>>>
>>> *looks at palms*
>>>
>>> Hmm. I've got a BA in Math.
>>
>> Then you should be aware of the meaning of consistency.
>> Tell us, bachelor, which is correct?
>> "But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k,
>> when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v..."
>> or
>> "It follows, further, that the velocity of light c cannot be altered
>> by
>> composition with a velocity less than that of light.
>> For this case we obtain V = (c+w)/(1+w/c) = c."
>
> Neither is correct, as neither is properly stated.
Blame Einstein then. Both are his statements.
>
> The best I can do here:
>
> [1] Light rings make a circular pattern from a point
> source, motionless with respect to the observer.
> The apparent velocity of two points on that expanding
> ring can be made to be anything from -2c to +2c, at
> least near the source, simply by selecting appropriate
> angles from the point source and extending the lines.
> This also means that Earth can broadcast information
> to two other planets faster than light (with respect
> to each other). Of course the two planets won't know
> that the other has received said info until sometime
> later -- though guessing is an honored pastime. :-)
>
> [2] The velocity of light from a moving point A is measured
> to be c from any observer which happens to hit it.
> However, light is virtually unseen otherwise;
> it makes a perfect stealth weapon. The best one
> can do is observe indirect effects, as in observing
> sunbeam direction by watching motes of dust reflecting
> the light. The SR addition formulae are consistent
> with constant lightspeed but cannot be meaningfully
> applied without some care, in light of [1]. However,
> they are easily derivable from the Lorentz.
>
> The proper method (if one can call a theory "proper") is this:
>
> Assume three points O, A and B.
A-------O-------B
> A is moving away from
> O at velocity v.
A--- <-(v)-------O-------B
> B is moving away from A at velocity w.
Oops. wrong diagram, my mistake.
O-----(v)>--A-------(w)>------B
> (These are both measured from A, if one wishes. O
> cannot measure w. B cannot measure v.)
Who says so?
t0
O-----(v)>--A-------(w)>------B
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
t1
O-----(v)>------A-(w)>------------------B
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
All O needs to do is is calculate
[AB(t1) - AB(t0) ] / (t1-t0) = w.
What's so hard about that?
> The *apparent* velocity of B with respect to O -- or O
> with respect to B -- is of course v+w, as A sees it.
Sure, that's simple enough.
t0
A-------(w)>------B
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
t1
A-(w)>------------------B
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
divide the change in x by the change in time. dx/dt = w
> However, if one were to sit on O (warning: different
> frame of reference here) and observe B, or sit on B and
> observe O, the observer would see the other moving away
> using the formula (v+w)/(1+vw/c^2).
If A can calculate w for B then O can count the distance
and divide by time in the same way.
t0
O-----(v)>-----(+)-----(w)>------B
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
t1
O-----(v)>------(+)---(w)>--------------B
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
You seem to be saying B is not as far from O as it is.
Prove it please, I don't believe you.
> Certain other phenomena would also be apparent, though because
> of the frameshift it is difficult to properly compare notes.
> However, O sees things slowing down on both A and B
> (B more so than A). A sees O and B slowing down. B sees
> O and A slowing down.
>
> All perfectly consistent, if very mind-bending.
I see nothing consistent about it.
> Arguably the
> best method of reconciling all this is to use Minkowski
> invariance or some such, using the value dx^2 - c^2 dt^2.
> Or one can use light cones.
Arguably the very best method of measuring velocity is to
calculate dx(A)/dt = v and add that to dx(B)/dt= u to find
u - w = v.
See, this change in distance has to be consistent. Consistent
means if u = v+w, then u - w = v.
There is no need of c in the equation, that only screws up the
PoR.
Let's try it this way:
Let the change in distance, as seen by O, be V for A
Let the change in distance, as seen by A, be W for B
Let the change in distance, as seen by O, be U for B
Adding distances, we have U = W+V.
When we divide U by time, we do so consistently
to arrive at
U/t = W/t + V/t
and since U/t = u,
u = v+w.
That is what is known as "consistent".
>
>>
>> Hint... looking at your palms will not help. Hanging your head in
>> shame
>> may be more appropriate.
>
> And high-speed decaying pi_0 mesons generate gamma rays that
> go at precisely what speed, exactly?
c+ (high speed) in a vacuum, of course.
Androcles.
>>
>> Androcles
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sue...
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>> > ;-) Sue...
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
> It's still legal to go .sigless.
- Next message: Sam Wormley: "Re: How to Measure OWLS Equal to c Experimentally."
- Previous message: George Hammond: "Re: God=G_uv Comments of Isham Dembski Unwin"
- In reply to: The Ghost In The Machine: "Re: Building a Light Clock"
- Next in thread: The Ghost In The Machine: "Re: Building a Light Clock"
- Reply: The Ghost In The Machine: "Re: Building a Light Clock"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
