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


bz wrote:
> "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote in news:h4%xe.105275$Vj3.46075
> @fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
>
> >
> > "bz" <bz+sp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > news:Xns96889858C4E94WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote in
> >> news:UeWxe.696$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
>
> It does. It is just hard to see here. It is here, it is there, it is
> everywhere.
>
> > or it would have a direction.
>
> It is essentially isotropic.
>
> > There is
> > no evidence to support a big bang.
>
> There are a lot of scientists that would disagree with you.
>
> > 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.
>
> I wish you were right. Personally, I like the tired light theory, but it
> fails some important tests. I would like to say that the combined
> gravitational effects have slowed down the light by just the right amount to
> give the observed red shift.
>
> Unfortunately, this would mean that there must be MUCH more mass behind the
> light than is in front of the light (because it GAINS energy falling TOWARD
> mass. That would mean that we have to be 'in a thin spot' of the universe.
> Since the matter seems to be 'more or less' the same in all directions, the
> theory of tired light must fall.
>
> In two dimensional analogy, if the enemy had to climb to reach us, from all
> directions, then that means we must occupy the high ground. But that would
> mean that the universe is not homogenous on a large scale.
>
> > 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.
> [quote]
> the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of
> reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good.
> [unquote]
> He does not say what those laws are. He just says that they will hold for all
> frames of reference for which the equations of machanics hold.
>
> He follows this closely with his second postulate.
> [quote]
> that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c
> which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.
> [unquote]
>

Coulomb force and gravity is what usually is exempted
from "crutched up" interpretations of AE's PoR.
Isn't that convenient? Long range forces that can
never be localized can't screw up what really
should be called a "Theory of Invariance".

But Oops. Exempting the Coulomb force and
gravity assumes things don't radiate.

Which is
quite consistant with Maxwell's equations
when Ampere's law is used, (vs Biot-Savart)
and quite consistant with a gravity theory
that requires rocket motors under your chair.


Sue...





>
> >>>> 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.
>
> Assuming a different n than for water. n_air, rather than n_water.
> Why doesn't it go at c'=(c+v)/n, like it was supposedly going before it
> entered the water.
>
> >> 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.
>
> That just shows that the time for the light to travel depends on the
> distance. Proves nothing wrt velocity.
>
> >
> >> 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.
>
> Science doesn't answer 'why' questions. It answers 'how' questions. I
> shouldn't have asked 'why'.
>
> What I was trying to find out is why you think that the light would speed
> back up. Should it speed up to c+v or just c? If just c, what happens to the
> excess energy?
>
> Suppose a photon from a light moving at .999 c has the velocity c'=c+.999 or
> 1.999 c. It passes through my eyeglasses. It slows down to c/n in the glass.
> Its path should get bent a lot more than a photon of the same color that is
> just moving at c. It will be out of focus. But what happens when it emerges
> from the glass? Is it moving at 1.999c or c?
>
> If there are c+v photons, a refracting telescope should see a much different
> picture than a telescope that uses front surface mirrors ONLY to handle the
> light.
>
> If we look at a Androcoles/Henri Cepheid with both telescopes (from the ISS),
> we should see very different views of the Cepheid. The mirror scope should
> focus all photons at the same time. The refractor should show different focii
> for photons of different speeds.
>
> >>
> >> It is because it travels at c in the water also.
> >
> > Relative to the water, it travels at c/n.
>
> That is 'c' for water. I was using c the way mach is used wrt sound.
>
> Mach varies with the altitude and temperature of the air(or other medium).
>
> > Relative to the shark, c/n +v.
> > ALL velocities are relative.
>
> Apparently all light travels at c/n relative to every apparatus used to
> measure light velocity.
>
> >> 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.
>
> If it has the right energy. Those jumps are quatitized.
>
> > It may even ionize.
>
> If it has enough energy.
>
> > The electron will then emit one or
> > more photons as returns to its ground state, and is not intantaneous.
>
> This is true for ionization and for quantum leaps.
>
> > 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.
>
> This is true for quantum leaps, atomic absorbtion/reemission.
>
> It is NOT true for the propagation of most light in transparent media.
>
> [quote http://www.answers.com/topic/photon-2]
> In a material, photons couple to the excitations of the medium and behave
> differently. These excitations can often be described as quasi-particles
> (such as phonons and excitons); that is, as quantized wave- or particle-like
> entities propagating though the matter. "Coupling" means here that photons
> can transform into these excitations (that is, the photon gets absorbed and
> medium excited, involving the creation of a quasi-particle) and vice versa
> (the quasi-particle transforms back into a photon, or the medium relaxes by
> re-emitting the energy as a photon). However, as these transformations are
> only possibilities, they are not bound to happen and what actually propagates
> through the medium is a polariton; that is, a quantum-mechanical
> superposition of the energy quantum being a photon and of it being one of the
> quasi-particle matter excitations.
> [unquote]
>
>
> > 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".
>
> Why must I choose between your three doors?
>
> I am afraid that light doesn't care what choices you give me.
>
> > 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.
>
> The problem is that your three choices leave out Einsteins postulate,
> entirely. Why must I choose one of YOUR options rather than Einstein's?
>
> >>> 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.
>
> There is no evidence against it, either.
> All evidence, to date, is consistent with this [Einsteins second postulate].
>
> There is no unambiguous evidence for c'=c+v either.
> There is evidence that IF c'=c+vk, k must be very small.
>
> > A medium will invalidate it, but the
> > issue is what 'c' is relative to in the absence of a medium.
>
> Light moves at c wrt source and wrt destination as far as all experiments
> performed to date. This is consistent will all available data from all
> sources.
>
> >>>> 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.
>
> With the removal of the 'v' term, I would agree.
> Experiments seem to indicate that if c'=c/n+vk, the k must be very small.
>
> >>>> 3) the speed of light is medium dependent.
> > Yep.
> >
> >>>> 4) there is no medium in a vacuum.
> > That defines "vacuum". Nothing in it.
>
> right. Just making clear that I don't believe in LET.
>
> >>
> >>> 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.
>
> It is c, relative to every object that has rest mass.
>
> >> 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?
> See below.
>
> > 1) INdependent A, c wrt A.
> >> 1) the speed of light is independent of source. It is c wrt source
> your 1 and my 1 are indentical. Independent of motion of source.
> [not c'=c+v]
>
> > 3) dependent B, c wrt B.
> >> 3) the speed of light is medium dependent. It is c wrt medium
> when moving through solid, liquid or gas [medium] the speed is dependent upon
> the medium. The speed is c wrt the medium.
>
> That is what I meant to say.
>
> > 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 for nothing.
>
> You are correct, I can't say 'it is c wrt vacuum'. Restated:
>
> 4) there is no [other] "medium" in a vacuum. The speed of light is c wrt
> every object when the 'medium' between the objects is the vacuum.
> [there is no aether].
>
> >>
> >>>>> 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.
>
> Which 'subjective' do you mean? There doesn't appear to be a definition for
> physics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective
>
> It sounds like you are not being objective.
>
> >>> 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?
>
> One doesn't have to go into space to measure the speed. Many experiments have
> been made that should have shown different results if c'=c+v were valid.
>
> > 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.
>
> I have no objection to shooting the moon. However, many closer satellites are
> available, every day. They move at much higher velocities. There should be
> greater c'=c+v effects.
>
> >>>>> 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.
>
> I place my faith in no theory.
>
> > You ducked out of
> > analyzing Einstein's paper with me, said you'd have to look at the math.
>
> I am still reading his book and looking at the math there and in his paper.
> Want to go through it with me, step by step?
>
> > 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.
>
> it comes from the equations of transformation that he developed earlier, that
> match the lorentz transforms.
>
> It represents the lorentz/einstein contraction of anything parallel to the
> direction of motion of the FoR.
>
> Further, deponent knowest not.
>
> >> 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.
>
> His second postulate "light is always propagated in empty space with a
> definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the
> emitting body" says nothing about a medium. He made no assumption of a
> medium. To the contrary. He assumed there was NO medium. He then showed that
> he could develop the same transforms, without a medium, that Lorentz had
> derived by assuming a medium.
>
> >>>>> 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.
>
> TWLS. Henri won't like that. :)
>
> > Why would my going down
> > the pub for a pint (speed unspecified) affect the two years it takes for
> > the light to come back?
>
> It doesn't, unless you take the clock with you.
>
> In order for the FoR to be a valid inertial FoR, it must maintain constant
> velocity. No acceleration allowed. So, if you move the clock, you break its
> connection with the FoR wrt which you wish to measure the light speed.
>
> You could leave a clock and resync the clocks when you get 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?
>
> faster wrt what? You have traveled through many FoR during your bar hopping.
> I bet that IF you properly transform your coordinates on each hop and compute
> t''''''' of your clock wrt the original FoR, correct your clock for all those
> effects and THEN measure the TWLS, you will still get c.
>
> >
> >> 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.)
> >
>
> Let me take the trip and I'll buy you all the beer you want.
>
> >
> >>>>> 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.
>
> Wood would do.
>
> >> 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.
> I am not sure what your point is with the two references.
>
> Beta Per (239) is in the catalogue the program has.
>
> > 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
>
> You change the separation by changing the radii of the stars. Radii are
> relative to the separation.
>
> See the 'Help'.
>
> > 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
>
> Not too surprising, you just made the stars coincide.
>
> > The real Algol doesn't show much of a dip in the curve at half phase.
>
> The photometric curve may not be to scale.
>
>
>
> --
> 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: Will Somebody PleaseTell bz What an Inertial Frame is.
    ... the sky is microwave colored. ... Red shift is NOT evidence of an expanding universe, ... for photons of different speeds. ... Mach varies with the altitude and temperature of the air(or other medium). ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Will Somebody PleaseTell bz What an Inertial Frame is.
    ... > There are a lot of scientists that would disagree with you. ... Red shift is NOT evidence of an expanding universe, ... > for photons of different speeds. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: FAO Simon Mason
    ... Council for Transport Safety which produced the report, ... Followed by the evidence. ... Claim there's no evidence lower speeds save lives. ... "It is proven that the 20mph limit does lower the number of accidents ...
    (uk.rec.cycling)
  • Re: Lightspeed exceeded
    ... Lorentz contraction in a fluid medium. ... Your HANDBOOK OF PHYSICS reference does nothing more than repeat the ... Is not evidence of a medium. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Gatso Speed cameras avoiding the fine
    ... >>> http://www.ntlworld.com/netreport and use this in evidence against you ... >>> notice of the camera warning signs next time. ... and was sent a calibration certificsate ... which showed the camera to be 100% accurate at all speeds, ...
    (uk.legal)
Loading