Re: Light speed in emission theory


"kanuk" <sperlingz@xxxxxxx> wrote in message news:CEPYh.142103$6m4.108123@xxxxxxxxxxxx

"Androcles" <Engineer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:XEOYh.102553$Zb2.29953@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"kanuk" <sperlingz@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:JQMYh.140240$6m4.119807@xxxxxxxxxxxx

"Androcles" <Engineer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:XPLYh.102214$Zb2.51563@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<fritzius@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1177766758.689809.258820@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Apr 27, 4:29 pm, "kanuk" <sperli...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
I am a stupid guy, who does not know the answer to this problem: A body
(observer) moves in a stationary frame with speed v<c. It sends a light
signal travelling with speed c+v (parallel with v). What will be the
speed
of the signal after reflection on a stationary mirror (which is
perpendicular to v).
Thanks to anybody who would answer.


You need to be doing this experiment in a pretty good vacuum.

Nah, Sagnac works just fine with or without vacuum.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm

RULES OF REASONING IN PHILOSOPHY.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RULE I.
We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both
true
and sufficient to explain their appearances.

To this purpose the philosophers say that Nature does nothing in vain, and
more is in vain when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with
simplicity,
and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes. --- Sir Isaac Newton.

With reference to this quote I am taking the liberty of advertising my
creation "An Alternative Mathematical Frame for the Theory of Relativity",
available at www.myrelance.com, link AMF, in pdf (no medium for energy
propagation included). Users of Firefox would have to download it and open
in pdf (Acrobat). IE works directly. TR is there treated in three
dimensions, even GR works that way.

If on the basis of this communication some people would be tempted to
state
that I am an idiot, I wish to let them know that that has been said
manytimes, so that they would be wasting their precious energy.

"Any suggestions for improvements in this direction would be greatly
appreciated. The writer hopes that no such a defect will be of a “fatal”
nature."

I see no reason at this stage to call you an idiot, but I do take immediate
issue with: "Because time depends on location"

I shall not comment with my own voice, but that of Newton's.

"Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature
flows equably without regard to anything external, and by another name is
called duration: relative, apparent, and common time, is some sensible and
external (whether accurate or unequable) measure of duration by the means of
motion, which is commonly used instead of true time; such as an hour, a day,
a month, a year."

"Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the
equation or correlation of the vulgar time. For the natural days are truly
unequal, though they are commonly considered as equal and used for a measure
of time; astronomers correct this inequality for their more accurate
deducing of the celestial motions. It may be, that there is no such thing as
an equable motion, whereby time may be accurately measured. All motions may
be accelerated and retarded, but the true, or equable, progress of absolute
time is liable to no change. The duration or perseverance of the existence
of things remains the same, whether the motions are swift or slow, or none
at all: and therefore, it ought to be distinguished from what are only
sensible measures thereof; and out of which we collect it, by means of the
astronomical equation. The necessity of which equation, for determining the
times of a phænomenon, is evinced as well from the experiments of the
pendulum clock, as by eclipses of the satellites of Jupiter."

You have chosen to argue against the words of one of the greatest men of
science that there ever was, perhaps *the* greatest.

This is not a comment, it is an invitation to you to substantiate your
postulate.

Please produce the empirical evidence to support your assertion
"time depends on location".
In particular, show that the duration of the period of a Saturnian Moon
is different when seen near Saturn than seen from Earth, my two chosen
locations;
for I claim that should I take a (perfect) caesium or similar atomic clock
to
Saturn (aboard the Cassini probe) it will remain synchronised with clocks
on Earth and measure the period of Titan to be exactly the same (within the
limits of experimental error and Doppler shift which I can obviate but
running
the experiment for as many orbits of the Earth about the Sun as necessary)
and that Newton was correct, using the finest clocks we have available.
"The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation
corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the
ground state of the cesium 133 atom. "

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/second.html

Androcles, that is a misunderstanding. Please, note, that my "postulate", ot
whatever you would call it, is: Time increases at a constant rate, which is
the same in all points which are stationary in relation to each other.

Why the caveat?

It
shows, however, a "phase difference" which depends on location, and
eventually, on the presence of other fields (e.g. gravitational).

Phase difference?
Uptime is 90 degrees out of phase with lefttime and 180 degrees
out of phase with forward time?

tau_x = (t-vx/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
tau_y = (t-uy/c²)/sqrt(1-u²/c²)
tau_z = (t-wz/c²)/sqrt(1-w²/c²)
xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
eta = (y-ut)/sqrt(1-u²/c²)
zeta= (z-wt)/sqrt(1-w²/c²)
If one is right they all are, if one is wrong they all are.
Carry three watches or do not move sideways or ride an elevator.

Personally I prefer three witches:
Double double, toil and trouble,
Fire burn and Einstein bubble. --- Pop!
("Macbeth" by W. Shakespeare)

You are not making much sense here.
Please produce the empirical evidence to support your assertion
"time depends on location". Alternatively, withdraw the statement
from your paper. Better yet, withdraw your paper.

In your terms, I am saying nothing else, than Newton has said, the period of
a Saturnian moon is the same, when measured on Saturn, on Earth or on the
surface of a black hole, the second would have still the same definition..

Ok, an engineer would call that the same "gain".

And if the TIME (not its rate of lapsing) were not dependent on location (a
"shift of phase") then Roemer would not have been able to determine the
velocity of light.

Rate of lapsing?
The word is "duration". Rate means "mass per unit time" (rate of weight gain)
or length per unit time (speed) or kilowatts per unit time (electrical consumption,
your meter reads it).
There are no meters per meter, grams per gram or seconds per second, the
word "rate" applies to a quantity that changes with DURATION.
A second is a duration, a day is a duration. "Rate of lapsing" is meaningless.
Roemer used duration of the orbit of the Jovian Moons.
He didn't care that he wasn't on the Greenwich meridian, but 1/2 an hour
or so ahead of GMT.

That the light from Sun travels to Earth for 8 minutes
is - I believe - fairly well known fact.

Duration.


Therefore, in my terms, there is a
time difference of 8 minutes between the Sun time and Earth time

We see the sun as it was 8 minutes ago, not as it is NOW.
I could have a phone conversation with you via a transceiver on the Moon
and hear what you said 2.3 seconds ago, but we could not synchronise
watches that way, you'd be two seconds behind me and I'd be 2 seconds
behind you and anyway you are 8 hours behind me. But we'd both
see the event of a meteor striking the Moon simultaneously.


(According
to Einstein, there woul be no such difference).

Einstein was an idiot, Newton would chew him up and spit
out the bones.


On the other hand, things
would look a little bit differently, if we would observe Sun clock and Earth
clock from Alpha Centauri (however, the period of a Sat. moon would be still
the same)
Satisfied?

No, I'm not. The time here (London) is 0:55 am, I'm about to wrap it up for the day.
The time in Southern California is 4:44 pm. I can go to a webcam and see traffic
"live" in daylight (slight delay) NOW.
http://svhqmsmedia1.dot.ca.gov/d12cam1
I understand a signal delay, but NOW here is NOW there.

Please produce the empirical evidence to support your assertion "time depends on location", duration of signal information (delay) is irrelevant. NOW here is NOW
everywhere throughout the Universe. The time is NOW.





.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Light speed in emission theory
    ... external measure of duration by the means ... for I claim that should I take a caesium or similar atomic clock ... on Earth and measure the period of Titan to be exactly the same (within ... Therefore, for high speeds, which have been observed in astronomy for some ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: SR paradox - help!
    ... >> earth fires an omnidirectional radio pulse. ... >> the moon one second later, it's twin beacon on the moon detects it and ... it is the clock which slows ... > directions of his travel due to time dilation. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The traveling twin of the twin paradox dies in the future.
    ... It seems the malfunctioning clock on the traveling twins ... collision into the moon on Dec 21st 2012. ... Earth time could ever know. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: The traveling twin of the twin paradox dies in the future.
    ... It seems the malfunctioning clock on the traveling ... moon does not care about his silly "time dilation" ... is yrs off of Earth time could ever know. ... which just as much precision. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: The traveling twin of the twin paradox dies in the future.
    ... It seems the malfunctioning clock on the traveling ... twins starship did not take into account that the moon ... Earth time could ever know. ... which just as much precision. ...
    (sci.physics)
Quantcast