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


"bz" <bz+sp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Xns96889858C4E94WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> "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.
>
If you had radiation from some supposed "Big Bang", it would either have
occurred right here where we are or it would have a direction. There is
no evidence to support a big bang. The CMBR is BACKGROUND radiation and
it is everywhere. Red shift is NOT evidence of an expanding universe, it
is evidence that the FURTHER AWAY a source of light is, the redder the
shift, and that is ALL that it is.
If Planck's equation E = hf has any validity, then energy is directly
proportional to the frequency. The energy from any given source is
finite and the energy we perceive is a function of the inverse square
law. The greater the distance, the greater the distribution of energy,
the lower the frequency.
Therefore we EXPECT light to be red-shifted as a function of distance.

>> , 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.
What does Henri know?
BaT is purely and simply the principle of relativity, as Einstein calls
his first postulate.
>
>>> 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.
No it doesn't, it goes at c/n.

> Not at c'=c+v.

Yes it does, all velocities are relative.
The velocity of light in water is relative to the shark.
Proof:
A shark swims toward an underwater source of light.
Relative to the water, the velocity of the shark is v.
It takes less time for the light to reach the shark than it does
to reach the reef the shark left, given that the speed of light in water
is finite.


> Why would it speed
> back up if c'=c+v was operative?
The speed of light in a medium is c/n. I don't pretend to know why.
"Why?" is cause for investigation.



>
> It is because it travels at c in the water also.

Relative to the water, it travels at c/n.
Relative to the shark, c/n +v.
ALL velocities are relative.


> It just was slowed down by
> absorbtion/re-emission as it traveled along its way. Between
> absorbtion/emission events, it travels at c.
When photon hits an atom, it kicks an electron into a higher energy
state
and stops dead. It may even ionize. The electron will then emit one or
more photons as returns to its ground state, and is not intantaneous.
The direction the photon(s) is/are emitted is NOT known. Absorption and
re-emission with the light still going in the same direction with the
same frequency isn't sensible. Scattering is.
(Why the sky is blue.)


> 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.

I was very clear. You have three choices, and I do not accept your
"corrections". The speed of light (c/n) is medium dependent except in
the absence of a medium, in which case it is source dependent. It is
c/n +v with respect to an observer. n = 1 in a vacuum.


>> 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.

There is no evidence for that. A medium will invalidate it, but the
issue is what 'c' is relative to in the absence of a medium.


>>> 2) the speed of light is independent of observer.

Of course it is. Redshift/blueshift easily demonstrates it, with or
without a medium. It is always c/n +v with respect to the observer.


>>> 3) the speed of light is medium dependent.
Yep.

>>> 4) there is no medium in a vacuum.
That defines "vacuum". Nothing in it.


>
>> 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.
Ok. Tell me what governs the speed of light, c.
Not what it isn't relative too, but what it IS relative to.



> 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

Would you care to reread 1) and 3) as you have written them?

1) INdependent A, c wrt A.
3) dependent B, c wrt B.
Maybe it was a copy/paste error, I've done that myself sometimes.

> 4) there is no medium in a vacuum. It is c wrt vacuum.
Nope. There is no reference fro nothing.



>
>>>> 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.

It doesn't matter how much SR/GR/EEP CLAIMS not to be subjective, guilty
as charged.

>
>> 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.

When did anyone go into space and do the measurement?
That's why I proposed shooting the moon. The number of measurements,
to date, is precisely zero, I don't care how objective no measurements
say they are.


>
>>>> 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.

Really... As I said, I can't reason against faith. You ducked out of
analyzing Einstein's paper with me, said you'd have to look at the math.
Now you think it's correct. If that isn't blind faith, show your
reasoning. I want to know where the sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) was found before it
was applied to modify Doppler.


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

Too right it does, but Einstein wants c in the vacuum as though it were
a medium. That's his second postulate.

>>>> 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.

The thing I want to measure is the time for light to travel from A to B
and back to A, which are one light-year apart. Why would my going down
the pub for a pint (speed unspecified) affect the two years it takes for
the light to come back? I can get back in plenty of time to be there 10
minutes before the end of the experiment.
If my clock ran slow I'd find the light went faster than c, wouldn't I?

> 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.

Probably not, but that doesn't change my thought experiment, which is
all Einstein had anyway. When I get back to A my watch has to read 2
years exactly, or I've measured a value of c different to yours. You can
stay at A and keep time, you'll miss out on the beer. (I was buying,
too.)



>>>> 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.

A moon shot will do it. We don't need a brick building full of test
tubes
to perform an experiment.



> 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.

http://www.physics.sfasu.edu/astro/ebstar/ebstar03.gif
and
http://www.physics.sfasu.edu/astro/ebstar/ebstar07.gif
demonstrates the problem with Algol.
If you move the blue and red stars any further apart than about 4 times
the radius of the red star, you can't eclipse for 10 hours in 70, or 52
degrees.
The program sucks, I was unable to change the separation between the
stars
and I got a divide by zero when I set the radius of one star to 1, even
though I was trying to set to 0.1
The real Algol doesn't show much of a dip in the curve at half phase.
AD.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Query about simultaneous events..
    ... |> The program uses c + v relativity to ... 2a) the velocity of light in a medium is medium dependent (stipulated to by ... 3a) aether is a medium for light and has the properties of permeability ... Inconsistent with MMX. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Sci Am proposes SR wrong and Aether exists
    ... I guess I do not understand what you mean by relativity ... >> Not 'material' interactions, the medium basic interactive ... >> 'Newtonian' mechanics isn't wrong, ... > your position-- why do relativity and quantum mechanics seem to ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Relativity: An orientation for beginners
    ... seeking some help in understanding the mysteries of relativity. ... stationary magnetic exists only when the wire is moving. ... as are all waves with which we are familiar, waves in a medium. ...
    (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)
  • Re: Will Somebody PleaseTell bz What an Inertial Frame is.
    ... >>> The medium governs the speed of light both in the medium and relative ... >>> 2) the speed of light is observer dependent. ... >> 2) the speed of light is independent of observer. ... >> 4) there is no medium in a vacuum. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)