Re: More speed confusion

On Jun 8, 12:05 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 7, 8:40 pm, G <gehan.ameresek...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jun 7, 6:18 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jun 7, 11:41 am, G <gehan.ameresek...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jun 6, 3:48 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jun 6, 11:23 am, doug <x...@xxxxxx> wrote:

G wrote:
On Jun 6, 8:13 am, doug <x...@xxxxxx> wrote:

G wrote:

On Jun 5, 6:05 pm, doug <x...@xxxxxx> wrote:

G wrote:

On Jun 4, 6:51 pm, Uncle Ben <b...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jun 4, 11:08 am, G <gehan.ameresek...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jun 4, 12:21 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.ander...@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Peter Riedt wrote:

On Jun 2, 9:22 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jun 2, 12:56 am, Peter Riedt <rie...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Paul, correct, it is a special case. SR works only in special cases -
all those which are beyond our experimental facilities.
We should ask however what force in the universe makes objects on a
direct collision course slow down to obey the above formula?

They don't slow down, Peter. This is the velocity they have.
You have the idea somehow that they start out at (v1 + v2) and then
slow down (v1 + v2)/(1 + v1*v2). They never get to (v1 + v2).

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
PD, correct. A'sspeedremains at v1 and B'sspeedremains at v2. Only
the distance between them shrinks at v1+v2, not (v1 + v2)/(1 + v1*v2).

Peter Riedt
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

So you finally got it.
In the frame of reference where A'sspeedis v1 and B'sspeedis v2,
A'sspeedremains at v1 and B'sspeedremains at v2. Only
the distance between them shrinks at v1+v2, not (v1 + v2)/(1 + v1*v2).

But you forgot to add:
In A's rest frame, B'sspeedremains at (v1 + v2)/(1 + v1*v2).
In B's rest frame, A'sspeedremains at (v1 + v2)/(1 + v1*v2).

Is that B'sspeedor closingspeed?
Is that A'sspeedor closingspeed?

All the speeds are constant.

--
Paul

http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/-Hidequotedtext-

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If you can't tell, why not actually read
a textbook on relativity? What are you doing here
anyway without any knowledge of the subject?

Uncle Ben

You can see Androcles reply. What I am doing here is trying to sort
out
how this relativity thing can conform to logic. Either I am stupid or
irrational or
relativity is.

Relativity has a century of experimental support. Most of the
relativity deniers just do not like it but they have no valid
reason.

But you can't explain how I could qualify and hold a> job and still be irrational and stupid. Therefore...

You clearly have not watched politicians at work.

But fair enough. I will look up closingspeedand relativespeedand
get back to you.

Well well we bring politics into this..

tell me this ,does Newtonian Mechanics have a century of experimental
support?

This is where we watch you cranks go and try to ignore what has been
done and what it means. Newtonian mechanics was shown to be wrong a
century ago. It remains useful in its domain of applicability..
Relativity has a century of careful tests and has been shown to be
correct in its domain of applicability. It is therefore a correct
prediction tool to use in those circumstances. Silly claims that
it is not logical or that you do not like do not change that.

Is Special Relativity compatible with quantum theory then ?
I cheated - I looked up the answer:
The modern world of physics is founded on the two tested and
demonstrably sound theories of general relativity and quantum
mechanics —theories which appear to contradict one another.
Wikipedia

Again you show that you are not looking for truth. Read what
I said. You are still hiding from reality.

"In reality" what would be the Coulomb force
between the lightning and the train's windows?

A. With the train stationary to the track?

B. With the train moving on the track?

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node52.htmlhttp://e...

Sue...

I would think the answer to A and B are the same .

Then you probably didn't read the URL's offered
and you might have some difficulty justifying the
funding of a particle collider to achieve relative
speeds that a single accelerator could not achieve.

Abuout the Fizeau experiment, the diagram shows light travelling with
the flow of water in both cases, though the text says differently.

Perhaps you have the green and black arrows confused.
I don't see a discrepancy.

Also, I think it is pretty difficult to draw conclusions using light
passing through fluids since the flow cannot be perfectly smooth and
there is a velocity gradient. A better way would be to do the
experiment using solid glass rods.

Actually that was recently done in a real device.

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0609222

More than you want to know... ;-)http://www.physics.berkeley.edu/research/packard/related/Gyros/LaserR...

How does it support SRT, why should relative motion between the source
and the medium affect the
speed of light?

That depends on how you measure the speed of light.

Some might use the phrase "support SRT" when they
really mean "refutes emission theory".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory

A modern interpretation would associate Special
Relativity with independence of light speed
and motion of the radiator and absorber.
Therefore. thought-experiments written for advocates of
Newton's light corpuscle which ignore the near
field medium are doomed to absurdity.

That doesn't keep the quacks and lazy teachers
from exploiting common misunderstandings about
electromagnetism.

<< Pseudoscience begins with a hypothesis—usually
one which is appealing emotionally, and spectacularly
implausible—and then looks only for items which appear
to support it. Conflicting evidence is ignored.
Generally speaking, the aim of pseudoscience is
to rationalize strongly held beliefs, rather
than to investigate or to test alternative possibilities.
Pseudoscience specializes in jumping to
"congenial conclusions," [stipulations ? ]
grinding ideological axes, appealing to
preconceived ideas and to widespread misunderstandings. >>http://www..quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html

Sue...

Sue

In the Wikipedia entry for the Fizeau experiment, in the top device,
the water enters the device on the right and leaves the device on the
left, meaning a right to left movement of the water. Light is moving
in the same direction.

The long arrows are water. The short arrows are light.
Light propagates both CW and CCW.

That seems consistent with the text:
<< The experiment sent two beams of light through a
pair of tubes filled with flowing water, so that one
beam was always travelling in the same direction as
the flowing water, and the other was travelling
against the flow. >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau_experiment

Maybe these coloured arrows will help:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8d/Fizeau_water_exper...



I accept the arguments for why emission theory is not viable, however
the alternative to emission theory
is an ether theory.

Isn't that sometimes called "false dichotomy" ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space

Actually de Sitters double star experiment demands
an ether to capture and regulate
photons at a constant velocity c with respect to the earth.

What "photons"?

<< The Nobel Committee avoids committing itself
to the particle concept. Light-quanta or with
modern terminology, photons, were explicitly
mentioned in the reports on which the prize
decision rested only in connection with emission
and absorption processes. The Committee says that
the most important application of Einstein's
photoelectric law and also its most convincing
confirmation has come from the use Bohr made of
it in his theory of atoms, which explains a
vast amount of spectroscopic data. >>http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/articles/ekspong/



Viewing a diagram of the orbits of the double star from above, it can
be seen that photons emitted towards the earth travel at c with
respect to the earth, but the source star and the photon have a
closing velocity of c-v and c+v respectively at the two extremes of
its orbit depending on if the star's motion is towards the earth or
not.

I don't see "photons" as they move from the sun to illuminate
the moon. You need to share a few cases of what you
are drinking with the rest of us. Then we might see what you
see. :-)



How can a physical phenomena depend on whether a star is moving
towards the earth or not? Except for ether?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space

Gas molecules can conduct a gravito-inertial force
by cohering. They can radiate electromagnetism
by disturbing their neighbours.



SRT depends on a limit to the speed of transfer of information.

How fast can a mathematician's pencil move?
SR never addresses the Coulomb couplings so it
can't have a reference body to set a speed on anything
in the physical world.

Quantum theory allows such an information
transfer.

Only on paper. The physical interpretation
has no experimental support.

"Advanced Potentials? "http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node51.html

So does calculation but no one seems to accept that. If the
time is 10:00 on my side of the world
I know instantaneously that the time is 22:00 on your side of the
world. If I were to use SRT I would come up with a different answer.

That is like saying yard-sticks an meter-sticks can't
be used to build equivalent houses.

(Special) Relativity and QED will give the same time.
When their mathematical structure is respected.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauge_fixing

"From Lorenz to Coulomb and other
explicit gauge transformations"http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034



Maybe my new friend Androcles can answer this. What is the time
difference between New York and London

a) according to Newton
b) According to SRT?

Androcles DOES exhibit moments of rational thought that
seems to escape some of the other posters.

I no longer consider him a friend since passion
for his beliefs ran away with his intellectual
and civil integrity in the *manner* (not the content)
he was editing of a few Wikipedia pages in days past.
Neither Gandhi nor Stalin can be my friend if they
both have poisoned the fishing pond.

Androcles knows how to use a posting engine that
will quote properly. I have to consider he still
maintains a malicious streak until he does so.

Sue...

Thanks

G

So light is not a photon, not a wave or is a photon and a wave, or
maybe neither

I'll have whatever physicists are drinking these days over what I am
drinking






.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: More speed confusion
    ... how this relativity thing can conform to logic. ... the flow of water in both cases, ... photons at a constant velocity c with respect to the earth. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: More speed confusion
    ... how this relativity thing can conform to logic. ... the flow of water in both cases, ... photons at a constant velocity c with respect to the earth. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: More speed confusion
    ... >> The speed of light c' in water moving the speed v can be written: ... > of the earth to find a physicians office. ... independent of the motion of the ship. ... relativity, it seem more like a ballistic effect. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: One criticism stands out
    ... Those photons come to us. ... If space-time is the medium for light and matter, and a photon travels ... This would mean that relativity is wrong. ... Right here on earth. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Speed of Light is Constant in Tired Light Models, Decelerated Light is a new model
    ... Michael Helland wrote: ... found that high-energy photons of gamma radiation from a distant ... galaxy arrived at Earth four minutes after lower-energy photons, ... relativity from this one observation, ...
    (sci.physics)