Re: Fact
From: Paulps (paulps_at_freeuk.com)
Date: 03/02/05
- Next message: DavidBowman: "Re: Achieving Critical Mass. Anarchist Communism, EMC squared and the Arc of the Covenant. How to construct a home-made nuclear weapon."
- Previous message: Jonathan Silverlight: "Re: Superluminal Quasar Jets : The Beaming "Explanation" Appears Inadequate"
- In reply to: Tom Roberts: "Re: Fact"
- Next in thread: Paulps: "Re: Fact"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 20:00:37 -0000
"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:d04nj6$5dl@netnews.proxy.lucent.com...
> Paulps wrote:
> > Some simple facts.
>
> If you seriously want to do physics and avoid nonsense, you must be much
more
> careful about not labeling your personal beliefs as "fact".
>
Facts are sometimes interpreted and presented in different way by different
people it's the results that count.
I will try and post a more mathematical presentation with more complete
conceptual details, in a shortish while.
>
> > a) The speed of light (SOL) is constant in the medium of vacuum and as
such
> > is used as constant.
>
> OK. Remember that what is actually measured is the speed of light in
vacuum
> relative to the measuring apparatus.
I understand this and that the measurement are normally taken from within
the atmosphere which have been taken in consideration..
> We find that no matter how the apparatus is
> oriented, or how it moves relative to objects like the earth and sun, the
> measured value is constant (after accounting for any non-inertial motions
of the
> apparatus).
But not the spectral shift.
>
> BTW nobody else calls vacuum a "medium". Be aware that your nonstandard
usage
> will probably confuse others (and perhaps/probably yourself). Calling
vacuum a
> "medium" does not make it one.
>
>From the Oxford paperback.
Vacuum:- Absence of normal or previous content.
Medium:- 1. A middle quality or degree of intensivness etc. 2. A substance
or surroundings in which something exists or moves or is transmitted. 3. An
environment. 5. An agency or means by which something is done.
>
> > b) The SOL is independent of the velocity of the source with respect to
the
> > vacuum/medium.
>
> For an optical medium this is clear and observable[#]. For vacuum you need
to
> explain how "speed relative to vacuum" makes sense and can be measured (at
least
> in principle). This directly implies you must specify how to measure the
speed
> of an apparatus "relative to vacuum". That will be quite difficult, as all
> measurements of speed are relative to the measuring apparatus, and vacuum
has no
> apparatus....
This is done by calculation by finding the unnowns from the knows.
> [#] But, of course, nobody measures speeds relative to the medium.
> What is measured is either speed in the medium relative to the
> apparatus, or speed relative to the apparatus and speed of the
> medium relative to the apparatus. In this last case some theory
> is needed to convert the two measurements into a speed relative
> to the medium.
>
Correct and this is my attempt and all rational responses are appreciated
as this is an indicator to the required presentation.
> With that last point of the footnote in mind, what you need to define and
> describe is a measurement of the speed of vacuum relative to an apparatus.
Good
> luck....
>
Thak you
> > c) The observer can from observation of the deviation frequency of light
> > with a known frequency, determine their velocity with respect to the
vacuum
> > that the light is constant in by a spectrophotometer and computation.
>
> This has the same difficulty mentioned above. In fact, as I mentioned
above,
> speed of light measurements in vacuum obtain the same value independent of
> motion of the apparatus. Measurements of frequency shifts depend on a
number of
> things, including gravitational potentials and relative velocity of
detector
> relative to source.
Yes you have come fairly near to understanding my postulate as the effects
can be calculated out so as to derive the information that I am calling
fact.
> But none of that can be described as "relative to vacuum" -- in every case
there
> is a physical apparatus relative to which measurements are made.
>
That is true but some actual facts need not be measured as they can be
calculated from the knowns.
>
> > d) Many of the examples posted to this group and in books fail to take
> > account of the above facts.
>
> That's OK, because they are not really facts.
>
I dispute that and will try to demonstrate how this can be done.
>
> > e) There are some resident trolls on this group that either though
intent or
> > misunderstanding try to obscure these facts
>
> "Never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence."
[attribution
> lost, possibly R.A.Heinlein] In this case, your inability to identify
actual facts.
>
No I believe it's your difficulty in accept new ways of dealing with the
facts but I like the quote.
>
But thank you.
Paul.
- Next message: DavidBowman: "Re: Achieving Critical Mass. Anarchist Communism, EMC squared and the Arc of the Covenant. How to construct a home-made nuclear weapon."
- Previous message: Jonathan Silverlight: "Re: Superluminal Quasar Jets : The Beaming "Explanation" Appears Inadequate"
- In reply to: Tom Roberts: "Re: Fact"
- Next in thread: Paulps: "Re: Fact"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
