Re: Light speed in emission theory


"kanuk" <sperlingz@xxxxxxx> wrote in message news:NGbZh.146258$6m4.76970@xxxxxxxxxxxx

"Androcles" <Engineer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:XP6Zh.70850$aB1.6399@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"kanuk" <sperlingz@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Or5Zh.144786$6m4.89339@xxxxxxxxxxxx

"Androcles" <Engineer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:KfRYh.102977$Zb2.77324@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"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.

I will attempt to answer some of your points, possibly not all of them.
1) Newton, your favorite sage. While I have no objection to consider him
if
not the greatest then at least one of the greatest physicists, the fact
remains that his physics does not consider the finite velocity of light.

If it did not, Roemer would not have used it.

"the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an
infinitely great velocity." -- Einstein (who plays the part, physically, of
an idiot savant).

Please produce the evidence to support your assertion that
Newtonian physics does not support a finite speed of light.

Therefore, for high speeds, which have been observed in astronomy for some
time, and at present are being observed in particle accelerators, his
equations fail.

What is the closing velocity in this animation of a particle accelerator?
http://hands-on-cern.physto.se/ani/acc_lhc_atlas/lhc_atlas.swf

Please produce the evidence to support your assertion that
Newtonian equations fail.

2) Einstein. You might have noted that I am no fanatic einsteinist.
However,
I am trying to give everybody his due. According to my opinion,


I have to interrupt here and tell you that I'm not interested in anyone's
opinion,
or even interested in any person alive or dead, except insofar as they can
prove their case. I demand proof. Nothing less will do. Your opinion will
be glanced through for possible tid-bits but otherwise go unstudied.

Please produce the empirical evidence to support your assertion "time
depends on location".

Please produce the evidence to support your assertion that
Newtonian physics does not support a finite speed of light.

Please produce the evidence to support your assertion that
Newtonian equations fail.




Einstein's
merit(?) is that he was the first to build up a physical system, from
several postulates (axioms?), which takes into account the finite velocity
of light. As in mathematics, axioms are unprovable. You may have some
reservations(?) to his axioms, but so far as I know, no alternative theory
exists, which would be similarly complete, or at least of similar extent.



3) NOW is NOW everywhere. NOW is no physical entity. A physical entity is
12:00:00 or so. That is time.
Duration by itself is meaningless. It has to relate to something, e.g.
duration of a trip, starting at T1 = 12:00:00 and ending at T2 = 12:15:00,
i.e. a trip of duration of 15 min.

I've been sitting at my desk for more than 15 minutes, time has passed.
You'll be telling me next that a bit, byte or word in computer memory
is not a physical entity, it has no mass and is of undefined duration.
If we are to continue this discussion then some definition of 'entity' is
called for, or we'll not be communicating and continuation is pointless.




4) Empirical evidence that time depends on location. Such evidence does
not
exist, in the same way as for the opposite that time does not depend on
location. That is a matter of definition, not of experimental proof.

Ok. So your choices are
a) withdraw the statement from your paper and all that directly follows
from it and I'll read it until I find the next sticking point.
or
b) Mathematically define time as a function of location.

The problem I foresee with that (perhaps you can overcome it)
is that your 12:00:00 is my 12:00:01 in my view and my 12:00:00
is 12:00:01 in your view, making time subjective. Yet this offset
is maintained in perpetuity, your 13:00:00 is my 13:00:01 in my view
and my 13:00:00 is 13:00:01 in your view. Our respective clocks
have the same gain but we cannot agree on the offset. This is very
different to Einstein's time, he has differing gains as a function of
relative velocity but he did it by dividing by zero and not telling anyone.
Subjectivity is not objectivity.


However, if my mathematics of Sec 2 is accepted, then c* = -grad(T) and
consequently T IS a scalar field, vith value of T depending on location.
This relationship is deduced directly from the definition of c = dr/dt and
its validity I have consulted with a mathematics professor.

I'm still stuck on your definitions of "time depends on location",
"duration is meaningless" and "'Now' is no physical entity", I cannot
proceed until I clearly understand your definitions.

Please produce the evidence to support your assertion that
Newtonian physics does not support a finite speed of light.

Please produce the evidence to support your assertion that
Newtonian equations fail.


5) To put all of this into "practical" terms. I believe that you have
accepted that light travels from Sun to Earth in 8 minutes.
Yes, of course. I'll not nitpick to tthe nearest second, 8 mins is fine.

Lets asuume,
that at 12:00:00 Earth time in Greenwich a solar eruption has been
observed.

Ok, so it took place at 11:52:00 and Cassini at Saturn will see it at around
1 o'clock. Cassini was taking a photograph of the Sun at that time,
transmits
the image and it will arrive at JPL at 2:10:00. What's the big deal?

Lets assume, that a clock exists on the Sun, going at the same rate (clock
rate is a technical term, like it or not) as the Earth clock. Which time
did
the solar clock show at the instant of the eruption?

11:52:00


Here I am ending for now. If you wish to continue our discussion, I will
be
glad to obtain your answer. If you are fed up with a crazy old guy - no
hard
feelings.

I'm quite used to crazy old guys. I'm crazy enough to argue with anyone
until they bore me, then I plonk them. You'll know when I've had enough.

Please produce the evidence to support your assertion that
Newtonian equations does not support a finite speed of light, c = dr/dt
is a Newtonian equation, Newton developed the calculus independently
of Leibnitz.

Please produce the evidence to support your assertion that
Newtonian equations fail.

Again, I can answer only some points.
1) Newtonian equations fail. It has been established, that for high particle
velocities the relationship F = m*a is not valid any more and has to be
replaced by the Einstein equation F = m*a/SQRT(1-v^2/c^2). I have some
doubts that this is final, but that is another question.

Please produce the EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE to support your assertion that
Newtonian equations fail.

Please do not produce handwaving bull***, I am not interested in bull***.

Please produce the evidence to support your assertion that
Newtonian physics does not support a finite speed of light.


2) While I do not care if infinitesimal calculus has been developed by
Newton or by Leibnitz, and I have no objection to c = dr/dt being Newtonian
equation, Newton's mechanics does not consider the effect of velocity on
some relationships, see 1).

"1)" is handwaving bull***, therefore "2)" is bull***.


3) According to my Oxford dictionary, "entity" means something real,
opposite to quality or relationship. I do not know, what else do you want.

I cannot proceed until I clearly understand your definitions.
We are at a sticking point, as I knew would happen.
What I want has been clearly stated and unanswered.

Please produce the EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE to support your assertion that
Newtonian equations fail.

Please produce the evidence to support your assertion that
Newtonian physics does not support a finite speed of light.


You may argue that time is nothing real which you can grab in hand. But I
hope that you will agree that it is something that can be measured.

Measurement is no physical entity.
Measurement is comparison of one entity with another.
I compare marks on a ruler with the diagonal of my computer screen.
My screen measures 17".
Measurement is a number.


More
exactly, duration can be measured (a point can't be measured, only distance
between two points).

Measurement, like NOW, is no physical entity.

4) Your reference to the hadron collider. I do not understand what you have
in mind. +v +(-v) = 0, for both Newton and Einstein. So what is the point?

Let's put it this way. I'm not trying to find out if you are crazy or not, but
whether you have any intelligence.

I wrote: What is the closing velocity in this animation of a particle accelerator?



5) You are demanding proofs, on several places. Are you not aware, that no
hypothesis can be proven, it can be only disproven?

"I frame no hypotheses" -- Sir Isaac Newton.



So, turning the table, I
am inviting you to disprove my assertion that time depends on location.

Ok, here goes, make a note of it.

When at the same location our watches read the same.
When you move away from my location, your watch reads less than my watch.
When I move away from your location, your watch STILL reads less than my watch.
I account for this apparent discrepancy in watch readings by stating that the velocity
of light is finite. If you deny it, that is against empirical evidence.
When we again meet "later", time has passed, our watches once again agree.
If you deny it, then that is against the supposition that you moved.
Around me is a sphere of radius 1 light second, wherever I happen to be.
You can be at any point on the surface of said sphere and your watch will read
one second less than my watch.
Let there be two locations on said sphere, North Pole and South Pole for want
of a better name.
Time does not determine which Pole you are at, your watch read by me is 1 second
slow for either.
I can extend the sphere to 1 light minute, 1 light hour, 1 light day, 1 light year,
indefinitely. By doing so not only have I disproven your wild conjecture, but
reaffirmed Newton's axiom, time is the same everywhere.
Your hypothesis fails, time is independent of location.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

Incidentally, the sphere I use in practice is the GPS satellite constellation.
Each satellite tells me ITS location, from that I can determine my location.

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

Did I see somewhere you saying you were a retired physicist?
I'm a retired engineer.
Physicists write reams of discarded papers, engineers make things work and
wear them out before discarding them, then we put them on display, with pride.
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/jetliner/concorde/concorde_18.jpg
I helped build Concorde.


To
satisfy you at this point, I wish to refer to my Eqn 5.3 and 6.6, which are
deduced for spherical fields, empty and non-empty, respectively. Of course,
you may argue that that is no experimental result. Neither can you present
an experiment "proving" your assertion that time does not depend on
location.
I think, that is all I wanted to say.

Disposed of.

Please produce the evidence to support your assertion that
Newtonian physics does not support a finite speed of light.

Please produce the evidence to support your assertion that
Newtonian equations fail.

.

Loading