Re: SR theory is simplistic

"G" <gehan_ameresekere@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:1174236647.669437.242280@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:


bz wrote:
"G" <gehan_ameresekere@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:1174003951.895766.282460@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

On Mar 14, 6:17 pm, bz <bz+...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"G" <gehan_ameresek...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
innews:1173872848.421005.196720@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:



On Mar 14, 7:28 am, bz <bz+...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"G" <gehan_ameresek...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
innews:1173832374.103288.148010@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

bz

I am not for the moment adressing the experimental evidence. OK
so someone should have noticed if there were c+v effects.

And that is my point.
The evidences for c'=c+v will be there if that rule is valid.

The moons in orbit - emitting photons system can be represented
by a turntable with two light bulbs
on the end, spinning rapidly.

To further simplify, the system can be represented by, at the
widest parts of the orbit , as by the observer, two light bulbs
moving tangentially, one towards the observer one away at say
velocities v_1 and v_2 where v1=-v2

ok. Agreed.
....
In the Lab's For, we can place the '0,0' point any where we like,
including at the axis of the turntable.

From the For of the turntable, the lab (the universe also) appears
to be rotating.

When you ask questions, being precise in formulating your question
will take you most of the way toward answering your question.

OK, that I realize that...
the displacement between each emitter and the photon emitted is
different; photon 1 is closer to the
earth by s/v and so is photon 2. However the emitters are at
different distances from the earth.

They were at the same distance from earth at the moment of
emission, in your example, right?

What I mean is after a time t, the photons are at the same
distance from earth but emitters are not.

The sources move after the photons are emitted.

OK

Why should we expect them to
still be the same distance from the emitters IN OUR FoR? (I would
expect each of them to be the same distance from their emitter in
their emitter's FoR.)

In our instruments FoR, we must measure distance from the point at
which the photons were emitted, NOT from where the emitters have
moved to by the time we detect the photons.

Imagine a foot race. One runner is crouched at the starting line.
The other is riding on a moving platform.
At the moment the gun sounds, both leap from their crouched
positions which are, at that moment, exactly the same distance from
the finish line.
Agreed


When you time the race, you use the distance actually covered by the
runners, not what distance they would have covered if the platform
one was riding on had continued to move until they reached the
finish line.

In the runners example, the one starting from the moving platform
has a bit of an advantage because of inertia. He doesn't have to
overcome as much of the inertial of his rest mass as he is already
moving.

But photons have no rest mass that must be overcome. They travel at
the same velocity and take the same time to run the course.

There IS a return of the Kinetic energy boost gained by a moving
start, however, the frequency of the photon is doppler shifted by
the exact right amount to account for that moving start.

Some Ritzians believe that the photons speed changes but not its
wavelength. This is demonstrably wrong as gratings are wavelength
sensitive devices and the doppler shifted spectra of a moving source
would NOT be displaced in a grating spectrometer IF the doppler
shift was due to changes in speed.

Have to look at this later

:)

What is the mechanism whereby a photon from two identical
emitters can be a different displacement
from the emitters (source) after a given time?

The emitters moved after they emitted the photons, one away from
the observer, the other toward the observer. One emitter 'runs
away from the photon it emitted', 'the other chases after the
photon it emitted', of course they will be different distances
[under the rules of Special relativity/general relativity and the
rules that also govern sound waves and waves on water.]

Does this not violate
the principle of equivalance
when we are seeing two different sources emitting photons at
different velocities to themselves?

The sources do NOT emit the photons at different velocities with
respect to the emitters.

Just imagine looking down at the emitters and the photons along
the turntable axix.
What you willl see is two photons and two emitters, the emitters
at different distances from the photons: the photons are moving at
a different velocities relative to the emitters.

The 'closing velocity' as seen by an observer NOT in the FoR of the
source or target can be up to 2 c.

The FoR of the axis is the FOR of the target: assume the target and
turntable axis
are in the same FoR and we are viewing the arrangement from the top
and we are in that FoR

Ok. In that FoR, the photons are emitted at the moment when both
sources are exactly the same distance from the target. The photons
travel exactly the same distance. The photons take exactly the same
time.

The photons do NOT have exactly the same wavelength because the sources
were in motion.

Point two particle accelerators at each other. Each sending
particles at .99 c toward a point of collision.
The 'closing velocity' is going to be 1.98 c as calculated by the
observer in the lab's FoR.

I am glad that is agreed: my point is that looking at indentical
emitters, they
appear to have ejected a photon at a different 'closing' velocity to
themselves:

No. From the emitter, the emitted photons is NOT moving at a different
'closing velocity' because the emitters FoR is MOVING with the emitter.

A little man riding along with the emitter, measuring the speed of the
photons being emitted, measures them as going the same velocity in all
directions because he measures the emitter's speed as ZERO.

From the LABS FoR (it doesn't matter where your zero is), the photons
are both moving at c from the moment of emission until they hit the
target. The observer in the labs FoR measures from the point of
emission to the target. S/He sees no reason to measure from the
emitters to the target or from the emitter to the photons because the
emitters have been moving since the photons were emitted. The 'opening
velocity' can be computed but it is rather useless. It will NOT be c,
but it is not the velocity that would be measured by someone in the
emitters FoR, it is not the velocity that would measured by someone in
the targets FoR. It is only good for confusing people.


two identical phenomena looking different because they are moving.

Yes. They have different doppler shifts.

We
have to conclude then
that emitters moving toward the earth appear to be sending out the
photon slower and
emitters moving away from the earth send out the photons faster when
moving away from the earth
in order to conform to the second postulate.

NO. We have to conclude that the photons emitted by the source moving
away from us have less energy and are redder than the photons emitted
by the source moving toward us.

We have to conclude this because that IS what we measure.
We have to conclude the photons both move at c in OUR FoR from the
moment of emission, because that is what we measure.


Of course if you assume an ether in the FOR of the earth, then it
simplifies matters considerably as to why the photons travel at the
same velocity in ether. Without the ether?

It does NOT simplify things. It complicates things.

You may feel more comfortable if you can say 'the cause is the ether'
than if you have to say 'we do not know the cause', but if you say that
the cause is the ether, then you must be willing to explain what the
TESTABLE properties of the ether are.

You have a problem because there are NO Testable properties for an
ether that are any different from the 'no ether' situation. In fact,
you have to explain how an ether can do the things it MUST do if it
exists. It must compress a moving iron bar and a moving feather by the
same amount. A diamond and a vanalla sunday. And when you stop moving
them, the ether must let them spring back with NO losses, no heating.
How can it do that?

Take a rubber band and stretch it. Put it against your lip to feel the
temperature of the rubber band. Let it relax and feel the temperature
again. It will feel cold. Why, when the ether streches and relaxes
things don't they get hot and cold? You have to invent all kinds of
explanations for the lack of other effects when you invoke an ether.

An ether is NOT simpler.


The effective closing velocity as seen by either particle is going
to be composition(.99c,.99c) = (v+w)/(1+v*w/c^2) = 0.99994595c

As best we can tell, from all experiments with moving sources, even
those moving at high velocities, once the photons are emitted, they
move at c in the FoR of our measuring equipment. Distance must be
measured from point of emission when timing the photons, NOT from
where the emitter may have moved to.

I agree distance should be measured from the point of emission if we
are timing photons,
it does not matter what the source does: this is to measure the
photon's velocity.

However my comment is about the assemtry of the entire arrangement
when moved in the target FoR

It is expected to be asymmetrical because one source is moving toward
the target and the other is moving away from the target.

The asymmetry is seen as different frequencies.

The velocities are seen to be identical by the target, as are the times
to travel from the emitters to the target as the photons are emitted at
the moment the emitters are equidistance from the target.


Identical emitters, and we have photons speeding away from each at
a different velocity as
seen in the turntable and earths reference frame. Why the
difference?

The source moves after the photons are emitted.



There are those (NOT I) that believe that since photons leave the
emitter at c, the photons must move at c'=c+v [contrary to
Einstein]toward the observer[Ritz et al., including some like
'Henri Wilson', 'Ken Seto' and 'John Kennaugh' in this newsgroup]
adhere to this assertion.

It is like saying since bullets travel at s metres ber second,
if a bullet is fired at the earth
by a moving gun, it will somehow arrive at the earth at s
metres per second because bullets allways travel at that speed.

Photons, Sound waves and water waves do NOT travel like bullets,
they travel like waves. As for why they do this, I have no idea
why it is that way, it just is.

Ah just the way it is, however sound waves and water waves involve
an ether that is air and water. For EM, ether does not exist.

It may or may not exist, I make no assertions one way or the other.
According to Einstein's 1905 paper, it is NOT necessary to assume it
exists. It has proven to be 'difficult' to detect, to say the least.

Since it IS unnecessary to assume its existance, and its properties,
if it does exist, seem to be only that 'it makes light travel at c
when measured by any observer', I see no reason to use an
undetectable aether.

What we do know is that for tests of various types, attempting to
determine the value for k in c'=c+kv, k has been shown to be very
small.

I am surprised it exists according to SRT

According to SRT, the value of k should be zero. We have yet to
establish for SURE that it is zero, but the data from Jupiters moon
should be sufficient to establish that it must be rather small.

Technology is now inexpensively available for timing occultations to
within a few milliseconds.

http://lunar-occultations.com/iota/vti.pdf

And there are a lot of people studying occultations.
http://lunar-occultations.com/iota/iotandx.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occultation is very interesting reading.

I am more and more certain that k must be zero because if the effects
that ballistic light predict were to occur, someone would have long ago
noticed being able to see stars 'through' the moons of jupiter and
seeing Jupiter's moons through our moon.

[quote]Photoelectric analysis of lunar occultations have also
discovered some stars to be very close visual or spectroscopic
binaries. [unquote] and [quote]Stars may also be occulted by planets.
.... Uranus' rings were first discovered when that planet occulted a
star in 1977. .... Pluto, ...occulted stars in 1988, 2002, and 2006,
allowing its tenuous atmosphere to be studied.[unquote]



If k were 1 as some insist it must be, then the effects I mentioned
would be quite visible.


Quite visible indeed.

I am looking at really AE's assumptions and they seem to be flawed:
1905 paper.
Will have to look at experimental evidence; actually will have to set
up my SRT website
and start typing away. Hopefully you can comment then.

AE's 1905 assumptions are useful and valid for intertial FoR's.
Even if there were flaws, subsequent development of the same formula
starting with different (but compatable with SR) sets of assumptions
has shown that SR is a useful tool for predicting.

I have had a little time to think of this. What I am getting at is
this:
Within an inertial reference frame, the laws of phsycis apply
( equivalence)
When the events of one reference frame RF1 are viewed from another
reference frame, RF2
moving towards it, instruments and observers in RF2 will see:

-Bullets moving faster from the same gun (or we do a Lorentz
transformation for bullet speeds)
-Crystals growing at a faster rate in one direction ( Lorentz
transformation for cyrstal growth)
-Photons travelling faster (?)

When viewed from RF1, equivalence does not take place, in order for it
to do so, everything must be adjusted by the closing velocity.

When you view events in RF1 from RF1, it does not matter what RF2 is doing.
When you view events in RF2 from RF2, it does not matter what RF1 is doing.

When you view events in RF2 from RF1, you must use the lorentz-Einstein
equations.

When you view events in RF1 from RF1, you must use the lorentz-Einstein
equations.

That IS the equivalence principle as used in the 1905 paper.

Later papers about GR use 'Equivalence Principle' to allow the acceleration
and gravity to be seen as effectively the same to the extent that an observer
cut off from view of the outside universe can not tell by means of any
instrument he has [those he has can not penetrate the walls of the elevator
he is in].


I referred AE's 1905 paper, and what he says there is clear, however
the principle of equivalence
that he refers to, I believe, applies within reference frames and not
when translating between between reference frames.

The assumption that light always travels at velocity c in any
reference frame regardless of the
reference frame it originates in then I believe this assumption
violates the principle of equivalence and I cannot accept it on
logical grounds for the above reasons.

You don't need to accept it on any grounds.
You are also free to believe the moon is made of green cheese.




--
bz

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

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

Relevant Pages

  • Re: STR contraction
    ... 'The Visual Appearance of Rapidly Moving Objects' ... remains uncontracted but _calculates_ that it has incurred contraction ... the GA trajectory and velocity itself amounts to, ... Those photons of non-zero mass are surrounded and affected by gravity, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: SR theory is simplistic
    ... not their distance from the emitter. ... What I mean is after a time t, the photons are at the same distance ... from earth but emitters are not. ... is riding on a moving platform. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: SR theory is simplistic
    ... from earth but emitters are not. ... The sources move after the photons are emitted. ... other is riding on a moving platform. ... The 'closing velocity' as seen by an observer NOT in the FoR of the ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: SR theory is simplistic
    ... from earth but emitters are not. ... The sources move after the photons are emitted. ... is riding on a moving platform. ... velocity and take the same time to run the course. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: SR theory is simplistic
    ... from earth but emitters are not. ... The sources move after the photons are emitted. ... other is riding on a moving platform. ... The 'closing velocity' as seen by an observer NOT in the FoR of the ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading