Re: IRT: A New Theory of Relativity
From: kenseto (kenseto_at_erinet.com)
Date: 02/10/05
- Next message: Spoonfed: "Re: Lorentz on special relativity"
- Previous message: George Hammond: "Re: GOD=G_uv FOR IQ's OVER 150"
- Maybe in reply to: kenseto: "Re: IRT: A New Theory of Relativity"
- Next in thread: Jesse Mazer: "Re: IRT: A New Theory of Relativity"
- Reply: Jesse Mazer: "Re: IRT: A New Theory of Relativity"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 17:25:52 GMT
"Jesse Mazer" <vze2ztqw@mail.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:420A56E5.9070805@mail.verizon.net...
>
>
> kenseto wrote:
>
> >"Jesse Mazer" <vze2ztqw@mail.verizon.net> wrote in message
> >news:4207F7D9.2030708@mail.verizon.net...
> >
> >
> >>kenseto wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Jesse Mazer" <vze2ztqw@mail.verizon.net> wrote in message
> >>>news:4206D243.10600@mail.verizon.net...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>kenseto wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>"Jesse Mazer" <vze2ztqw@mail.verizon.net> wrote in message
> >>>>>news:4206A90C.7080507@mail.verizon.net...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>kenseto wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>"Jesse Mazer" <vze2ztqw@mail.verizon.net> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>news:42060D6C.20708@mail.verizon.net...
> >>What frame does "wrt the light rays" specify? Is it just the frame where
> >>the light rays are moving horizontally at c, or is it a frame where the
> >>photons are actually at rest, or something else?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >No frame is specified. We arbituary defined that the light rays are
moving
> >in the "horizontal direction".
> >
>
> What does the word "horizontal" mean in the absence of some axes to
> compare the motion to?
>
>
>
> > With that definition then the apparatus must
> >be moving vertically wrt that direction of motion of light to get the
null
> >result for all the orientations of the arms.
> >
>
> I still don't understand what you mean by "moving vertically wrt that
> direction of motion".
Then there is no pint of continuing this conversation.
>When people say something is moving "with respect
> to X", they mean that its distance from X is increasing at a certain
> rate. But what does it mean to say X is a "direction of motion"? Can you
> pinpoint the location of the "direction of motion" in space, and say how
> the distance of the apparatus increases with respect to it over time?
the words *horizontal* and *vertical* defined directions of motion. It got
nothing to do with distance. It is much like moving in the x-axis direction
and the y-axis direction..
>
>
>
> > We could arbituary define the
> >light rays are moving in the "right to left or left to right direction".
> >
>
> Not without defining a left-right axis.
Why?
>You might as well say "we could
> arbitrarily define the apparatus to be at position x=5" without
> specifying the location and origin of the x-axis.
Sigh....you can certainly say that an object is moving in the x-axis (call
this horixontal) and another object is moving in the y-axis (call this
vertical). There is no distance involved in this definition.
>Sure, we could
> arbitrarily "define" things that way, but it would be meaningless, like
> saying "I arbitrarily define the light rays to be moving in the
> sdjhfshjdfh direction".
But that's how the MMX apparatus is moving wrt the light rays to get the
null result for all the orientations of the arms.
>
>
> > In
> >that case the apparatus must be moving in the "up and down" direction to
get
> >the null result for all the orintations of the arms.
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>That isn't a reference frame.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Why do you need a reference frame??
> >
>
> Because I want to get a quantitative understanding of what you are
> proposing--right now I can't even picture it. Can you come up with some
> specific scenario to illustrate what you're trying to say?
So are you saying that you can't even visulaize that something is moving in
the x-axis and something is moving in the y-axis?????
In that case I can't help you.
>For example,
> in fig. 2.2 of the paper you sent me, let's say that the source and the
> target are a distance of 2 light-seconds apart along the vertical axis,
> and they're moving at 0.6c along the horizontal axis. Suppose a light
> beam is emitted from A at t=0 seconds, and travels up a distance of 2
> light-seconds to the same height as the target at t=2 seconds...but by
> that time the target will have moved horizontally a distance of 1.2
> light-seconds, so the light beam will miss it.
Only the first portion of the light beam will miss the target.Why? Because
the speed of light is much faster than the speed of the target that means
that the photons that are generated at a later time will have a chance to
catch up and hit the target. Why can't you look at the diagram to see this
effect???
>Now, if point C is 6
> light-seconds away from point A, at what time-coordinate would light
> have to be emitted from point C in order to hit the target?
Sigh....the light beam is continuous and is composed of a train of photons.
The first photon will have to travel a full two light-second to reach the
old position of the target and thus missing the target. The second photon
will have to travel the gap between the first photon and itself to reach the
old position of the target and it too will miss the target but it will miss
the target by a lesser distance. Each subsequent photon will miss the target
by a lesser distance. The first photon (and the subsequent photons) that
hits the target is the photon that arrive at the position of the target when
the target does not yet have a chance to move away.
>Would it be
> emitted at t=10 seconds, since at that moment both the source and the
> target will be at the same horizontal position as C? But if so, wouldn't
> the light emitted from C take another 2 seconds to reach the the target,
> by which time the target will have moved another 1.2 light-seconds
> horizontally?
See above explanation.
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >>Is there a coordinate system where the
> >>center of the apparatus has changing z-coordinates while its x and y
> >>coordinates are constant, while the light rays have changing x and/or y
> >>coordinates while their z-coordinates are constant?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >You are trying to introduce a third system into the arguement. The light
> >rays are "defined" as moving "horizontally" that all you need to know.
> >
>
> That is not enough to give me a picture of what you're proposing.
Sorry then I can't help you.
>If
> your idea is coherent, surely it would at least be *possible* to define
> all the motions in terms of some fixed coordinate axes, even if you
> don't find it *necessary* to do so? Or are you claiming to have
> discovered some new type of motion which is impossible to understand in
> terms of a coordinate system?
Fixed coordinates axes mean absolute rest. Who can propose such an axes
system???
>
>
>
> >>If there is a coordinate system where the train is moving vertically in
> >>the z-direction while all the photons move only in the x,y directions,
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Why are you keep on harping on a coordinate system??? When you assign
> >coordinate system you are assuming that the person who assigne the
> >coordinates is in a state of absolute rest.
> >
>
> Uh, no you're not. Are you familiar with basic Newtonian physics? Do you
> understand that if I am driving in my car at 60 mph relative to you, we
> are free to use either a coordinate system where you are at rest and my
> velocity is 60 mph *or* a coordinate system where I am at rest and you
> are moving at 60 mph in the opposite direction?
>This was true despite
> the fact that Newton did believe in Absolute Space--so even if you
> believe in Absolute Space, that does not obligate you to use a
> coordinate system where the origin is at rest in absolute space. The
> Galilei transform of Newtonian physics is based on the idea that each
> system's origin is moving at velocity v in the other coordinate system:
In SR an observer assumes that he is in a state of absolute rest. That's why
he sees all clocks moving wrt him are running slow. Similarly the coordinate
system you proposed for the supernova....you assumed that you are at
absolute rest..
>
> x' = x - vt
> y' = y
> z' = z
> t' = t
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >>then no matter what time the photon is emitted, by the time it reaches
> >>the current x,y coordinate of the target, the target will have a greater
> >>z-coordinate than that particular photon. This will be true regardless
> >>of when the photon is emitted, or how small the z-velocity of the train
> >>is compared with the x,y velocity of the photon.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >What you said here is irrelevant to our discussion how the MMX null
result
> >can be realized even if the apparatus is moving wrt the light rays.
> >
>
> Maybe so, but it's relevant to your claim that the light would not be
> moving diagonally in the rest frame of the ether/Absolute Space, and
> it's also relevant to the paper about light clocks you sent me.
No its not relevant. Your failure to understand is not a fault of my theory.
Your insistence that light is moving diagonally is bogus. How is light so
smart that it can select the correct diagonal path--out of infinite number
of diagonal paths--- to follow dependent and the selected path is dependent
on the velocity of the light clock?
>
> >
> >Your explanation is irrelevant.
> >
>
> I'm not trying to give an explanation of anything at the moment, I'm
> just pointing out that your explanation of how the light from the source
> can reach the target without travelling diagonally in the rest frame of
> the ether/Absolute Space doesn't seem to make any sense.
It is clearly illustrated in the diagram. The editors of the journal
Galilean Electrodynamics agree with it completely. I am puzzled that you
can't understand that the light beam is moving at c and the target is moving
at v and c>>>>v therefore the photon that are generated at a later time will
have a chance to catch up before the target will have time to move away.
Notice that if the target is moving at c no photon is able to reach the
target.
Ken Seto
- Next message: Spoonfed: "Re: Lorentz on special relativity"
- Previous message: George Hammond: "Re: GOD=G_uv FOR IQ's OVER 150"
- Maybe in reply to: kenseto: "Re: IRT: A New Theory of Relativity"
- Next in thread: Jesse Mazer: "Re: IRT: A New Theory of Relativity"
- Reply: Jesse Mazer: "Re: IRT: A New Theory of Relativity"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
