Re: Why SR? (was: Source Independency of Light Speed Without an Aether???????)

On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 20:19:20 +0100, "Androcles" <Headmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:


"John Kennaugh" <JKNG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:P0JV3YPyH4RKFw4L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Androcles wrote:





O-level problem
"There is a regular stream of cars travelling down the motorway at 70
mph.
You clock them going past you at 1 per second (a frequency of 1Hz) when
you are stationary on the other carriageway. You set off at 70mph down
the
other carriageway and now you pass 2 cars a second (a frequency of 2Hz).

Q1 - Has the spacing between the cars changed?

A-level answer:
A1: I am now stationary behind the wheel in my own car. Clocks do not
measure distance. I can't measure the distance between cars with a clock.
"The idea that you can measure the length of something moving with
less than you need when stationary is absurd." -- Kennaugh.

Ergo your question is absurd.
"Advice - when you are already in a hole stop digging." -- Kennaugh.

0/10 The spacing between cars does not change just because you are
looking at them independent of whether you are stationary w.r.t the
ground moving at 70mph or are standing on your head.

"The idea that you can measure the length of something moving with
less than you need when stationary is absurd." -- Kennaugh, digging
a deeper hole.

The cars are now approaching my FoR at 140 mph and arriving with
a frequency of 2 Hz.
140 * 5280/3600 = 205 fps

205 fps * 0.5 second = 102.5 feet apart.

When I was not driving the cars were approaching my FoR at 70 mph
and arriving with a frequency of 1 Hz.
That's err... 102.5 feet apart.

Join all the cars together with 102.5ft rods.
When you drive past them, do the rods change lengths?

"The idea that you can measure the length of something moving with
less than you need when stationary is absurd." -- Kennaugh, screaming
from the bottom of a deep hole.

So what was needed?
1) A stop watch.
2) KNOWLEDGE OF THE SPEED.

How do you measure speed?
1) A stop watch.
2) A ruler or tape.

So what was needed?
A RULER.

One way to have your friend in a car behind you. If the behind car
flashes his lights

I want to measure the wavelength of light. I can calculate the distance
between cars... should I calculate the distance between photons?

EVER HEARD OF A DIFFRACTION GRATING?
(No answer from the bottom of the hole)

Ever heard of RED SHIFT?

Ever heard of a FREQUENCY COMB?

These are indeed interesting but it isn't clear what is actually happening.
What is beating with what?

every time he is level with a car on the other
carriageway you can adjust your spacing until when he flashes, you too
are level with a car on the other carriageway. Your spacing is now the
same as the cars on the other carriageway. All you need to do now is
measure the distance between the two cars which are stationary in the
same FoR.

Yes, we can manage cars. It is SR and wavelength of light that has you
confused.

SR is bull.

10/10 correct so Androcle's animation where the ground is essential to
measurement is crap!

Can't be or I'd not be able to draw it.

Cars are adjacent. Mark the ground. 0.5 seconds later, I have traveled
102.5 feet North. The next car has also traveled 102.5 feet south and
is now adjacent. Mark the ground. I traveled 102.5 feet, the other car
did the same. 140 mph = 205 fps.
That's the measure of the distance between cars, 205 feet.

What the heck is this?


you've been
talking to crackpots for too long and it has rubbed off on you.

I thought that you and I were both crackpots as far as the majority in
this NG are concerned.

It's all relative. :-)
Wilson has more cracks than either of us put together,

You assume that all that Wilson produces is dross. He believes
everything he produces is gold. I find a few nuggets in his outpourings
which make me stop and think. The problem with all 3 of us is that we
are too old (I am making an assumption). Most original thought comes
from young minds. Most breakthroughs are by people under 30. Education
in physics seems to be indoctrination; questioning the one true faith is
not encouraged.
My only hope of making a contribution to physics is to encourage
students to question what they are being taught which I see as a
students birthright anyway. Neither you nor Wilson are helping towards
that aim. Slagging each other off, or in this case slagging me off is
not helpful in giving the impression that you have anything valid to
say.

Good cop, bad cop. I'm quite happy to play bad cop. Wilson
wants to be recognised and have his own theory, you fail to
understand how measurements are actually made and want to
slag me off.

"No No No. If you move away from a sound source the wavelength
does NOT change."
I said the MEASUREMENT changes. And it does, as I proved
with what YOU slagged off as "crap".

You just proved above that it doesn't change.

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/Relative.gif

With a diffraction grating (single point measurement) the
MEASUREMENT of wavelength changes.
Diffraction grating measurements are crap. So are so-called
"frequency combs" which depend on wavelength.




he's not an
engineer.

I think the advantage of being an electronics engineer is that every
time you get to switch on a circuit and it doesn't work you are reminded
that your logic is not infallible. Hint - yours isn't in this case.

Hint. Your logic is not infallible. Measured wavelength changes with
velocity and the measurement is all we have. So let's get back to
slagging each other off.

My only hope of making a contribution to astronomy is to encourage
students to question what they are being taught which I see as a
students birthright anyway. Neither you nor Wilson are helping towards
that aim. Backing each other up, or in this case slagging me off is
not helpful in giving the impression that either you have anything valid
to say.

.....are you acquiring a persecution complex?

He claims to be a "D.Sc." but that is an obvious misdirection,
he's a Dunce of Scepticism. That means he's right to be a sceptic,
but like you he keeps his frames undefined. You will agree with me
long before he does, you have to.

In this instance you are wrong so I think it unlikely that I will agree
ever. You are not very good at trying to see someone else's point so I
doubt you will ever admit to being wrong even when you do see that you
are.


In this instance you are wrong so I think it unlikely that I will agree
ever. You are not very good at trying to see someone else's point so I
doubt you will ever admit to being wrong even when you don't know
what an FoR or a measurement is.


After all, I'm quoting you. How
can you not agree I'm right?

You haven't understood what you are quoting. None of the quotes
strengthen your case.

The wavelength measured in the frame of the source is not the
wavelength in the frame of the moving observer. Doppler said it,
I say it. Neither you nor Wilson have understood that, so carry on
slagging me off and I'll do the same to both of you.

But you just demonstrated above that the distance between cars was the same no
matter how you moved. Have you completely lost it?

John Kennaugh




Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

.........putting Physics back into Phairyland...
.

Relevant Pages