Re: Will Somebody PleaseTell bz What an Inertial Frame is.

"Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote in
news:UeWxe.696$d75.627@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

>
> "bz" <bz+sp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:Xns9687EDE449726WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> "Arthur Dent" <jp006t2227@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
>> news:1120334272.118942.112390@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> bz wrote:
>>>> "Arthur Dent" <jp006t2227@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
>>>> news:1120291898.963571.290740@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
>>>>
>>>> >> > Just speed up the light, then :-)
>>>> >>
>>>> >> kinda hard to do, at will, otherwise there would be no point in
>>>> >> our
>>>> >> discussion.
>>>> >
>>>> > Actually it's as simple as bat and ball, at least in principle,
>>>> > but
>>>> > trying to do it in air is like playing tennis underwater.
>>>>
>>>> I am afraid that would be 'kinda a drag'. Photons don't seem to slow
>>>> down while passing through vacuum [and not much through air].
>>>
>>> Enough air and even brilliant sunshine turns red.
>>
>> Because blue light is scattered by our atmosphere. [thats why the sky
>> is
>> blue]
> It isn't scattered in space, that's why the sky is black

At night, the sky is microwave colored. The distant echo of the big bang.

> , why there is
> no aether, why there is no "one atom per cc" as Sue thinks because it
> said so on a web page. :-)
> As I said, BaT isn't a friction model, whereas your blue sky is.

Sounds like a 'blue sky' pronouncement.

>>>> Once they do slow down for the media, they don't continue to lose
>>>> velocity, which they should do if BaT were valid.
>>>
>>> Whether you were right or wrong, it would have nothing to do with the
>>> speed of light in nothing.
>>> The ballistic theory of light isn't a friction theory.
>>
>> The proposal was that light is slowed by passing near matter.
>
> No it wasn't.

Henri's proposal was that light is slowed by passing near matter.

>> BaT light has no minimum velocity.
>> It would continue to slow until it stopped moving.
>
> Light leaving water and entering air is sped up, not slowed down.

It goes at c after leaving the water. Not at c'=c+v. Why would it speed
back up if c'=c+v was operative?

It is because it travels at c in the water also. It just was slowed down by
absorbtion/re-emission as it traveled along its way. Between
absorbtion/emission events, it travels at c.

This seems consistent with the very slow light experiments.
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/1999/02.18/light.html
http://www.msnbc.com/news/242698.asp?cp1=1

>>>> They certainly don't stop. Tennis balls do.
>>>
>>> The medium governs the speed of light both in the medium and relative
>>> to the medium. Move the medium at v and the speed of light is added
>>> to
>>> the speed of the medium, v, and becomes c/n+v.
>>> You've got three choices.
>>> 1) The speed of light is source dependent.
>>> 2) the speed of light is observer dependent.
>>> 3) the speed of light is medium dependent.

These were not intended as choices. They were corrections to the above
statements. They ALL apply.

>> 1) the speed of light is independent of source.
>> 2) the speed of light is independent of observer.
>> 3) the speed of light is medium dependent.
>> 4) there is no medium in a vacuum.
>
> Your 4) is a superfluous statement, not a choice, and vacuum is by
> definition free of any matter whatsoever and isn't an option that
> excludes the other 3.

I am sorry I wasn't clear, they were corrections, not choices.

> 3) takes care of MMX.
>
> That leaves us with your 1) and 2) .
> They are not mutually exclusive. Both could be valid.
> That makes it difficult to reach any kind of conclusion.

ALL of mine apply [per SR/GR/EEP]
>> 1) the speed of light is independent of source.
>> 2) the speed of light is independent of observer.
>> 3) the speed of light is medium dependent.
>> 4) there is no medium in a vacuum.

> My way of thinking:
> 1) The way to our destination is to turn left at the next T-junction.
> 2) The way to our destination is to turn right at the next T-junction.
>
> Your way of thinking:
.....you misread because I was not clear.

> Try to formulate options that are relevant and will lead to a
> conclusion.
> You've got THREE choices.
> 1) The speed of light is source dependent.
> 2) the speed of light is observer dependent.
> 3) the speed of light is medium dependent.

I don't agree with 1. I restated it.
I don't agree with 2. I restated it.
Although 3 is true it doesn't apply to a vacuum.
all the following apply:
1) the speed of light is independent of source. It is c wrt source
2) the speed of light is independent of observer. It is c wrt observer
3) the speed of light is medium dependent. It is c wrt medium
4) there is no medium in a vacuum. It is c wrt vacuum.

>>> In MMX all three apply since source, medium and observer are all
>>> relatively at rest.
>>
>> If there were an aether, the medium would not have been at rest.
>>
>>> Take away the medium and you are down to two choices, the subjective
>>> speed of is light is c for you personally and speed of light is
>>> objectively source dependent.
>>
>> SR/GR/EEP says "it ain't 'subjective'" and it is independent of
>> source.
>
> Thieves usually plead not guilty when charged.

Strawman and as an analogy has nothing to do with situation.

> I say that the speed of light being c WRT the observer is purely
> subjective, by definition of subjective.

Every measurement made, to date, says it is objectively true.

>>> We see red/blue shift, and there is no
>>> aether.
>>
>> Agreed.

> Good. So the amount of shift is dependent on the speed of the source,
> there is no aether so we can't use Doppler's f' = f.c/(c-v) (which WOULD
> hold for aether), that leaves Doppler's f' = f.(c+v)/c and the speed of
> light is source dependent. Or maybe you think Doppler was wrong.

I think the Einstein formulation of the doppler effect is correct.

The doppler effect depends on the RELATIVE velocity between source and
observer.

>>> The subjective speed of light c for the observer would mean the
>>> irrationality of time dilation. I send a beam of light from A to B, a
>>> distance of 1 light-year, reflect it back from B to A for a total
>>> time
>>> of 2 years, and in the meantime I buzz around in any direction, any
>>> speed and return once again to A. If my clock slowed as I did so I'd
>>> be
>>> forced to conclude the speed of light from A to B and back again was
>>> greater than c, which is a contradiction and irrational.
>>
>> The only thing irrational is to think that you can do anything during
>> the
>> experiment without changing its results.
>>
>> If you leave your clock behind, when you come back and check the
>> speed, it
>> will be correct. You can't take the clock with you
>
> Why can't I take a clock with me? I take my wrist watch with me most of
> the time, and I've yet to see a RATIONAL reason for it changing as a
> function
> of my velocity.

Because it is not a valid measure of the speed of light. In any scientific
experiment you keep everything constant that you possibly can keep constant
except for the thing you want to measure. Taking your clock with you
introduces additional factors into the experiment.

As for your watch, I doubt that your watch has sufficient accuracy for you
to know whether or not it gained or lost time during any trips you have
taken during your lifetime.

>>> Performing an experiment with light IN THE VICINITY of matter is
>>> essentially the same as light in a medium, only the distance from the
>>> photon to the atom has changed.
>>
>> All light is in the vicinity of matter. Especially if we perform an
>> experiment of any kind.
>
> It leaves the vicinity of matter ( a star) and travels a heck of a long
> way though space near nothing at all. That's very different to going
> down a waveguide or accelerator tube.

If you can't show c'=c+v photons in a laboratory, you are going to play
heck convincing anyone that they exist.

Take a look at http://members.cox.net/astro7/binstar.html
Download the Starlight Pro program and play with it.

It gives an interesting view, data on a bunch of stars and some useful
light curves simulations. Perhaps it will be useful to you.
I would love to be able to compare its results with your program's results.

--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

bz+sp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: New improved fact v0132
    ... Maxwell's equations contain terms for fields and currents - no medium. ... > character would be displayed.The view that EMR is a wave in a vacuum is ... > changes the velocity will not change. ... > at the source and observer boundry with the vacuum. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Improved facts
    ... > a result of relative motion between the source and the observer. ... > be the same as it cannot be proved that space is not a medium Paul. ... > of vacuum and as such is used as a constant. ... > velocity differences in the observation process. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Will Somebody PleaseTell bz What an Inertial Frame is.
    ... >> The medium governs the speed of light both in the medium and relative ... >> 1) The speed of light is source dependent. ... >> 2) the speed of light is observer dependent. ... > 2) the speed of light is independent of observer. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • new improved facts v012
    ... Light is EMR requiring a supporting medium. ... if not vacuum? ... e) The SOL is independent of the velocity of the source. ... Simplified procedure to determine simplified observer velocity relative to ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: new improved facts v011
    ... >> b) The vacuum will support the effects of a changing charge in the form ... >> c) Light is EMR requring a supporting medium. ... >> Simplified procedure to determine simplified observer velocity relative ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)