Re: SR theory is simplistic


"G" <gehan_ameresekere@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:1174523796.757050.167920@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

By the way, I visited your fascinating web site, agree with your
diagrams completely.

Thank you, I try to please.
Coming soon to a computer near you, the latest epic from Dumbledore Studios:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/trailer.JPG
In glorious technicolor and 3D.

Your comments on AE's 1905 train and embankment thought experiment are
sort of related to
the topic, will look at it and get back to you, obviously, it is
possible to test if what
you are saying is correct.


read something sensible and say, "Oh... Really?...Oh. I see I was
confused. OK, I get it now. Now what about...?" My head knew better,
my heart does not.

[sitting in the duck blind, waiting with a shotgun for a duck to
appear]- PD
/unquote.

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/PoR/PoR.htm

Not only is your site informative, it forms the basis for discussion
of AE's simple assumptions- since then various other people have
expanded the universe of SRT considerably, I dont think even AE hought
it would go so far.


I have several questions regarding the following AE's simple
explanations :

"
Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to
discover any motion of the earth relatively to the ``light medium,''
suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics
possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They
suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of
small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be
valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics
hold good. "

OK- agreed, however does he mean WITHIN all frames of reference for
experiments contained within
one frame of reference or not?

The equations of mechanics hold good throughout the universe,
you just need to know what the equations are.
http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fw/gifs/coriolis.mov

If the ball curves then light curves.
You can see the ball curve by changing the frame of reference,
but you need to use the correct equations for the situation.
We live on a rotating Earth, light curves. Travel across he
Atlantic and you'll follow a curved path.



"We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be
called the ``Principle of Relativity'') to the status of a postulate,
and also introduce another postulate, which is "only" apparently
clearly irreconcilable with the former, namely, 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."

Several questions here: definite velcity wrt to what? WRT to empty
space? What is he talking about?

Exactly. Einstein was not a scientist. He ranted and mumbled
meaningless drivel to make himself appear smart, as you see
most of the contributors to these newsgroups doing. All they
want is to appear smarter than you, that gives them a thrill
and makes them self-satisfied. They fool only themselves and
those they take in.


Also if light is independent of the velocity of the moving body IN OUR
OBSERVATIONAL reference frame, then the source can do anything- this
means that the source can even close in on the photons emitted ahead of it.


The comparison is to sound in air. If the source moves through
the air then the motion of the source does not affect the speed
of sound. However, if the listener moves through the air and
the source does not, then the speed if sound is altered relative
to the listener. It's all about three frames of reference; the source,
the medium and the observer. In the vacuum of space, no medium
exists. Instead of attaching the speed of light to the source,
Einstein attaches it to the observer. We call that subjective thinking.

Subjective:
3 a : characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind : PHENOMENAL b : relating to or being experience or knowledge as conditioned by personal mental characteristics or states
4 a (1) : peculiar to a particular individual : PERSONAL <subjective judgments> (2) : modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background <a subjective account of the incident> b : arising from conditions within the brain or sense organs and not directly caused by external stimuli <subjective sensations> c : arising out of or identified by means of one's perception of one's own states and processes <a subjective symptom of disease>
5 : lacking in reality or substance : ILLUSORY


Objective:
3 a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations <objective art> <an objective history of the war> <an objective judgment> b of a test : limited to choices of fixed alternatives and reducing subjective factors to a minimum


Science is objective thinking.

"By means of similar considerations based on observations of double
stars, the Dutch astronomer De Sitter was also able to show that the
velocity of propagation of light cannot depend on the velocity of
motion of the body emitting the light."

Did he show that?

No, he didn't.
De Sitter was a very poor astronomer and mathematician who
could not think in 3D.
There is only ONE double star system that can be observed directly,
that of Sirius. It has a period of 50 years and is 8 light-years away.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap960902.html
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap001006.html

De Sitter failed to realize the orbit of Sirius has a different
inclination to the one he calculated by *assuming* the speed
of light is observer dependent. It is a circular calculation.
If I assume that light doesn't bend, then I see this straw broken.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Algol/straw.gif
I see the straw broken. You can too, drop a straw in a glass
of water and look. Therefore light doesn't bend.
But of course we know the straw is not really broken, we
can change our position and pull the straw, so light bends.
What we cannot do is visit Sirius or change our position,
so if we assume the speed of light is unchanged, then we've
proven the speed of light is unchanged. That's circularity.
We cannot believe what we see when what we see is a distortion.


Did anyone show that?

No. The astronomer wants to believe what he sees is
what is there. It is just too mind-boggling for him to realize
that he is seeing a distortion.

Case in point:
http://ltpwww.gsfc.nasa.gov/tharsis/canals.html

"Professor Lowell's theory is supported by so much evidence of different kinds that his own exposition should be read in extenso in Mars and its canals (1906) and Mars as the abode of life (1909)."

Since then we've visited (with remote cameras) and there are no canals
on Mars.

There was a lot going on in the early 1900s, Marconi was sending
radio across the Atlantic, the Wright brothers were flying, it was an
exciting time; science was "in". It lead to crackpots and hoaxes.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/piltdown.html
Einstein jumped on the bandwagon.

This is REAL science:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Analemmae/Analemmae.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Algol/Algol.htm





Appreciate all comments from others in the group, thanks

g


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: transformation equations
    ... ?You need to keep your frames of reference straight. ... Mine is based on Einstein's train and lightning problem. ... observer is beside a straight railroad track. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Problem with Einsteins Train Thought Experiment
    ... always be seen by the observer to be traveling at 'c'. ... other star at the same time relative to the star's emission of light. ... be the same in all inertial reference frames" ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Query about simultaneous events..
    ... > There are other concepts of simultaneity, ... > for events in two different frames of reference. ... > Observer B ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • re:Paradox from Relativity of Simultaneity?
    ... that if the laws of physics are the same in all frames of reference ... example of a spaceship passing an observer on earth at 0.8 c relative ... SR right in both frames of reference? ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Post 2. Facts and Rules for SR Transforms!
    ... > inertial frames. ... invariant to an instantaneous acceleration of the observer. ... > These local observers read and record the local grid ... and this tree is about to show its ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading