Re: New impoved facts part 1v03


"Harry" <harald.vanlintel@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4254ea89$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Dr ***" <paulpsremove@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1112811752.10542.0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "Harry" <harald.vanlintel@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:425407fc$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "Dr ***" <paulpsremove@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1112799850.31278.0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > "Harry" <harald.vanlintel@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > news:4253e71f$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Correction:
> > "Harry" <harald.vanlintel@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > news:4253da51$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >
> > > "Dr ***" <paulpsremove@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > > news:1112789990.20067.0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >SNIP
> > > > > > Of Time, Vacuum, Velocity, Gravity and the Speed of light.
> > Simplified
> SNIP
> > > > > > A vacuum is defined as a medium with a permitivity of
> 8.854*10E-12
> > > > > > F mE-1 or e0 and permeability of 4pi * 10E -7 H mE-1 or u0 with
> the
> > > > > > field state being ~ sea level.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The following are simple provable or logically deducible facts
> > > > > >
> > > > > > a) The speed of light (SOL) is measured constant in vacuum and
> also
> > > > > > in any given medium. Its speed in vacuum is given the
designator
> c.
> > > > > > b) From a) we can also state that the velocity of the vacuum
> > > > > > is zero with respect to(wrt) the light under measurement at the
> > place of
> > > > > > measurement and is assigned the letters vv otherwise our
> measurment
> > > > > > of the SOL may have an offset which may need to be calculated
in,
> > > > > > in some cases.
>
> > > > I could not believe that you seriously would present an in this
> > > > context obvious logical error as "improved fact".
> > > > The error: you assumed that what is measured must correspond to
> reality
> > > > as depicted from your model, unaffected by the phenomena.
> > >
> > > > d
> > > > Uh! Thats a nice piece of fantasy if ever I read one :-)
> > > > Forget about the phenomena for a moment I am just for a moment
> referring
> > > > to the process of measurement, any measurement.
> > > > Any measurement has at least two components its base and its value
do
> > > > you have a problem with this?
>
> > h
> SNIP
> > The way PD put it was better although also
> > not good enough. Reworked:
>
> > The local return speed of light through a vacuum is measured to be c
> > relative to any inertial reference system.
>
> > (And now, what is your vv?)
>
> > d
> > Ok I'll go with that,
> d
> Great!
> BTW, I forgot to add at the end: "that is used for the measurement" (it's
> not measured to be c wrt external reference systems that are in motion
> relative to it).
>
> Tricky Dickey or Harry in your case :-) but I think you are trying to
clear
> that c is only valid in any reference frame and not necessarily across
> frames.?
h
Yeap -- even stronger, it's by definition invalid across frames ("closing
speed").
d
What does 'closing speed' mean in this context?
How is it that I see posters and books using it as a communication medium
between frames then?
Are you saying that these posters and books are using SR incorrectly?
How can SR communicate across frames if the SOL is not a constant without
considerable context dependant calculation?
Perhaps it would be better to accept my view that its constant in vacuum and
accept that the relative velocity of the vacuum between frames needs to be
considered ?:-)

> > and in this case vv = velocity of reference system or
> > vacuum. but now I will have to include the frequency as in a particular
> case
> > and method the return path will have a different velocity and frequency.
> h
> That's still not clear to me. Velocity is by definition relative (even
when
> it is called "absolute").
> For example, my car has a max. speed of 170 km/h and that is an "absolute"
> measure, as the road functions as "absolute" reference.
> d
> From a local pov you can informally use absolute, but the absolute road
> needs in this case to be defined as zero because it quit clear from a more
> global perspective that the velocity of the road is not zero. So from a
> Physics pov the velocity of the reverence needs to be stated which is what
I
> was trying to do.
> h
> Simlarly, "the speed of sound" is "absolute" as without further indication
> it's with reference to the medium and not to the observer,
> d
> But again to avoid confusion the speed of the medium needs to be stated.
It
> will be zero wrt to the SOS but it may need stating in wrt a passing bus
or
> the rail track etc. This is why particularly in relativistic physics the
> reference needs to be stated so if necessary it can be carried across
> frames.
> h
> while the speed
> of sound outside a riding train wrt the train is called "relative" speed.
> d
> This can cause confusion particularly when the SOL is concerned as and has
> been defined as a constant. So to avoid this possible confusion I feel the
> reference needs to be carried with c to avoid confusion. You appear to
> prefer to be confused ?
h
To the contrary, "the SOL" is defined as I explained above and that's why I
insist that you specify what you mean!
d
See my questions to your definition above.

> Thus,
> "vv = velocity of reference system relative to the vacuum" would be a
> possibility,
> but "vv = velocity of the vacuum relative to the vacuum" makes no sense!

> d
> This is what I wrote and it is what I meant 'vv = velocity of reference
> system or vacuum' and it is neither of your options.
> It will in most cases be zero although I have to qualify the use of
> 'reference system' as I can think of a reference system that would not
show
> zero.
h
Thus what do you refer them to?!
d
An offset from zero a hard a vacuum as I can find or imagine.
h
In any case, it's a *very* bad idea to use one label for two different
entities, especially when it's supposed to be about "improved facts".
IOW, you appear to be confused or to like confusing the readers.
d
I must be *very bad* then and may beat myself to death as soon as I have
finished communicating my point:-)
This being that the vacuum is many entities with many different velocities
so I attached a variable to it called vv which you seem to object to going
by above. You cant have your cake and eat it, so they say :-)


> > > h
> > > > As a matter of fact: in the only self-consistent model of this type
> that
> > > > I know of, the measurements *are* affected by the phenomena.
> > > > On top of that, even a) is incorrect: if that medium isn't vacuum,
the
> > > > SOL is measured to be a function of the speed of the medium as
well.
> > >
> > > No reply?
> > d
> > Yes, I just wanted to clear the two component measurement with you and
yes
> > the medium effects the phenomena that's why the SOL in vacuum is c and
not
> > some other figure. If I was trying to state the SOL in treacle I would
> have
> > said so and as far as I know the SOL in treacle is not c but it may very
> > well be a constant for ants.:-)
> h
> What I referred to is the Fizeau effect. Do you know it?
> d
> Yes I am familiar with the method of measurement of the SOL by Fizeau but
> what do you mean by effect.?
h
I meant Fresnel "drag" of light by the moving medium as first measured by
Fizeau.
You can look it up with Google.
d
I have no need now you have identified the effect you are referring to and
it was you that *dragged* in other mediums than vacuum, presumably to
confuse the issue ?

> > There is one slight problem in that I am fairly convinced that I can
design
> > a method of measurement that will show the SOL to be a variable wrt the
> > inertial frame although not wrt to the vacuum. So how do you write that
?
>
> I'm not sure what you mean... possibly you mean something like formerly
> Miller and now Cahill.
> Then you hope to be able to detect a variable SOL wrt to the lab inside a
> medium that is in rest in the lab ?
> d
> No, I have no illusions as to constancy of the SOL in the lab or locally
> within the environs of the planet. But externally to the planet and away
> from large bodies I am convinced that the SOL will be shown to be both
> constant in vacuum and a variable wrt the measuring apparatus indicating
> that the vacuum has a number of velocities depending on the conditions.
h
You can only measure it relative to your measurement system!
d
Of course, but if I find it has different velocities under different
conditions wrt to the measuring apperatus then I can infer that these
conditions effected my velocity readings and perhaps draw the conclusion I
have been trying to post.

Dr ***

Harald



.

Quantcast