Re: Improved facts
From: Paulps (paulpsremove_at_freeuk.com)
Date: 03/05/05
- Next message: Sue...: "Re: Improved facts"
- Previous message: jahn: "Re: Improved facts"
- In reply to: jahn: "Re: Improved facts"
- Next in thread: jahn: "Re: Improved facts"
- Reply: jahn: "Re: Improved facts"
- Reply: PD: "Re: Improved facts"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 08:23:43 -0000
"jahn" <susysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:38t142F5mhn1hU1@individual.net...
>
> "PD" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1109992096.108146.116840@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Paulps wrote:
> > > b) The speed of light (SOL) is observed to be fairly constant in the
> > >medium of vacuum and as such is used as a constant.
> >
> > Fairly constant? How 'bout just plain constant.
> >
See new improved fact to be released shortly
> > > c) The SOL is independent of the velocity of the source with respect
> > to the
> > > vacuum/medium.
> >
> > Um, yeah, ok. Also independent of the velocity of the source with
> > respect to anything else.
> >
What is the measured source spectral shift caused by ?
> > > d) The SOL is currently always measured at c due to procedural and
> > equipment
> > > limitations (03-03-2005).
> >
> > Due to procedural and equipment limitations? It's always measured to be
> > c within experimental uncertainties, yes.
> >
That as well.
> > > e) The fact of spectral shift as a product of Doppler shift is proof
> > of a
> > > velocity differences in the observation process.
> >
> > I don't know what "velocity differences in the observation process"
> > means.
> >
The spectral shift measurement is caused be velocity differences. Do you
disagree.?
> > > f) The observer can from observation of the deviation frequency
> > (spectral
> > > shift) 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, in most cases.
> >
> > This is wrong. The observer can NEVER determine their velocity with
> > respect to the vacuum, by any means whatsoever. If you think otherwise,
> > provide some expression of said velocity, in terms of measurable
> > quantities.
>
This is NOT wrong. You are ignoring the parts of this text that tells you
how to do it.
> As a matter of definition, I agree with you. As a matter of
> practical physics there is an important consideration.
>
> If a volume of gas has only three particles, then you can determine
> a velocity with those particles. (one particle is the observer )
>
You in fact need three fairly distant events from the observer producing
EMR, and the observer to determine the velocity in 3D vacuum.
> If a volme of gas has less that three particles, then.you have
> set the volume too low, excluding the observer and a
> predomanant influence on the dielectric properties of
> the volume.
>
See above
> IOW a vacuum with an observer is not a vacuum.
> The "eye of god view" doesn't count because the
> light is defined only by it's influence on a particle.
>
See above
> We shouldn't dismiss a very practical statement of
> phenomena simply because the mathmatics to
> describe it are under a bit of strain.
>
Which practical phenomena are you refering to?
> >
> > > g) In some cases the effects of what has been called time dilation
> > and its
> > > associated length compression and the gravity gradient need to be
> > included
> > > in the computations.
> >
> > Um, ok, in which computations are you talking about?
To many to detail at present allthough the effect is minimal for many
calculations.
> >
> > > h) So to the definition in the Oxford Physics can be added~ and with
> > > spectral shift information and computation the motion of the observer
> > and
> > > source in relation to the medium in which the wave is traveling in
> > can be
> > > extracted.
> >
> > No. See (f) above.
See my reply and replies.
> > > i) Many of the examples posted to this group and in establishment
> > books fail
> > > to take account of the above facts and can be misleading both in
> > concept and
> > > formulation.
> >
> > I certainly agree that some examples posted to this group can be
> > misleading both in concept and in formulation. The original post here
> > included.
> >
See my replies..
> > > Simplified procedure to determine simplified observer velocity
> > relative to
> > > vacuum:-
> > >
> > > Find source spectral shift = Ss
> > > Find source velocity relative to vacuum from Ss to = Sv (Hydrogen
> > line
> > > analasis)
> >
> > This step is the one that's impossible. Hydrogen line analysis shows
> > velocity of source relative to observer, not relative to vacuum.
> >
You must think that the SOL is not independant of the source then?
> > > Find observer rotational velocity = Orv
> >
> > With respect to what? Vacuum? No can do.
> >
No from a book. fixed stars etc.
> > > Find observer orbital velocity = Oov
> >
> > With respect to what? Vacuum? No can do.
> >
See above etc.
> > > Observer velocity relative to the medium of vacuum = c-Sv-Orv-Oov
> >
> > The last three terms are unknown.
> >
You may not know them but many do or can calculate them.
> > >
> > > I'am sure somebody can make this more complicated. Check the minus
> > signs
> > > as some may be pluses at some phases of rotation and orbit.
> > >
> > > Additional information:-
> > >
> > > 1) The velocity and spectral frequency of the source can be
> > determined by
> > > observing a binary pair or a single star from a point on the earth
> > that
> > > doesn't contribute
> > > any additional velocity to the observation (or the earth motion can
> > be
> > > calculated out). Once the velocity and spectral frequencies have been
> > > determined for the source and with the knowledge that the SOL in
> > vacuum is
> > > known and that the SOL is independent of the source. The spectral
> > shift due
> > > to the earth's motion will allow you to calculate the earth's
> > velocity in
> > > relation to the vacuum in the vicinity of the observation in which
> > the
> > > light travelled and with some confidence all the way back to the
> > source.
> >
> > Nope. Show how.
> >
Read above and my replies.
> > > 2) The argument that the SOL in vacuum is not constant but is always
> > > measured as c does not conformed to Occams razor and is clearly an
> > > artificial construct designed to support faulty reasoning.
> >
> > On the contrary, to assume SOL is NOT constant makes a more complicated
> > picture of the universe and so violates Occam's razor. Why do you think
> > that SOL being c always is a more complicated situation?
> >
You are not reading my text try again.
> > > 3) The argument that light shows particle characteristic in some
> > cases
> > > does not disprove the fact that light is a wave function in a medium
> > it just
> > > demonstrates the similarity of wave functions to particles in some
> > cases.
> >
> > No one disputes that light is a wave. No one disputes that it's a
> > particle, too.
> >
> > > 4) Particles are themselves a more complex form of wave function in
> > the
> > > medium of vacuum but with characteristics modified by their
> > complexity, one
> > > characteristic being ballistic. To characterise particles and their
> > actions
> > > is a complex business prone to error and can be very expensive.
> >
> > Um, I don't think waves are any less expensive.
> >
> > >
Thank you PD you have helped me get it clearer see new improved
facts that I will be posting shortly if you still have difficulty.
Paul.
- Next message: Sue...: "Re: Improved facts"
- Previous message: jahn: "Re: Improved facts"
- In reply to: jahn: "Re: Improved facts"
- Next in thread: jahn: "Re: Improved facts"
- Reply: jahn: "Re: Improved facts"
- Reply: PD: "Re: Improved facts"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
