Re: Lightspeed exceeded
- From: PD <thedraperfamily@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 07:51:17 -0700 (PDT)
On Sep 30, 8:15 am, John Kennaugh <J...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
PD wrote:
On Sep 29, 10:00 am, John Kennaugh <J...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Maverick wrote:
Regarding lightspeed.
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/exceeded-lightspeed
As supernova explotions or the Big Bang theory implies, matter is
thrown by bigger force in various directions and speeds.
If some matter is thrown at 2/3 of the speed of light in one
direction, and other matter is thrown in oppersit direction at the
same speed from origen,- theese will travel apart at 1 1/3 of the
speed of light.
This tells us travel beyond the speed of light is possible.
The SR belief system is based upon two postulates. The second one says
that the speed of light is c w.r.t the observer observing it but makes
no attempt to explain how an observer can have this magical effect on
the transportation of light energy.
The observer doesn't have this effect.
It is a mathematical model not a
physical explanation.
Sure it does.
Relativity is a principle theory
" We can distinguish various kinds of theories in physics. Most of them
are constructive. They attempt to build up a picture of the more
complex phenomena out of the materials of a relatively simple formal
scheme from which they start out. Thus the kinetic theory of gases
seeks to reduce mechanical, thermal, and diffusional processes to
movements of molecules i.e., to build them up out of the hypothesis of
molecular motion. When we say that we have succeeded in understanding a
group of natural processes we invariably mean that a constructive
theory has been found which covers the processes in question.
Along with this most important class of theories there exists a second,
which I will call "principle-theories." These employ the analytic, not
the synthetic, method. The elements which form their bases and
starting-point are not hypothetically constructed but empirically
discovered ones, general characteristics of natural processes,
principles that give rise to mathematically formulated criteria which
these separate processes or the theoretical representations of them have
to satisfy. The advantages of the constructive theory are completeness,
adaptability, and clearness, those of the principle theory are logical
perfection and security of the foundations. The theory of relativity
belongs to the latter class."
Found in: "What is the Theory of Relativity?", Einstein, Ideas and
Opinions, Three Rivers Press, p. 228-
You will note that Einstein's definition of a principle theory is
indistinguishable from that of a mathematical model.
Don't be ridiculous. Note where he says: "The elements which form
their bases and starting-point are not hypothetically constructed but
empirically discovered ones, general characteristics of natural
processes..."
Mathematical models do not necessarily rely on empirical observations.
This is essential to the difference between physics and mathematics.
Einstein states
elsewhere that "Relativity puts forward no specific hypothesis".
The problem is, you have a particular notion of what a "physical
explanation" has to include, and the physical explanation about the
structure of space and time does not meet your inclusion standards,
and so you reject it as a viable physical explanation.
You have been at it for so long that you are starting to think of the
mathematical world you inhabit as having a physical manifestation. Space
does not have a 'structure' unless you believe in the aether. It is the
absence of structure.
And that's ridiculous. It is your contention that only *material*
stuff can have physical properties or structure. That is a
presupposition that is not warranted.
It's no wonder that YOUR assumptions about how nature works are
incompatible with the constancy of the speed of light. However, this
should suggest to you that your assumptions are unwarranted, not that
the explanation is not physical.
"The nature of the physicists' default was their failure to insist
sufficiently strongly on the physical reality of the physical world." Dr
Scott Murray
I agree with Murray
It follows mathematically from the postulates that
nothing can travel relative to *you* at a speed greater than c.
No sir. That would be a circular argument, and that is not the
argument made.
From the postulates you derive a relationship which says that anything
with mass travelling at c w.r.t you would have infinite mass, therefore
nothing can travel faster than c and only massless particles can travel
at c.
Sorry, but no. That is not a derivation but a self-consistency check.
This
does not mean that you cannot send something at 0.999c in one direction
and 0.999c in the other and calculate that their speed of separation is
1.998c. The point is neither is moving w.r.t *you* at >c.
Consider the following
You Source ->v
Suppose a source is travelling away from you at v. Then the second
postulate says the speed of light in *your* FoR is c so light is
separating from the source at c+v.
No sir. Here is the assumption you've made. You've ASSUMED that
velocities combine by simple vector addition.
I did nothing of the kind.
This is so central to
your thinking that you assume that any theory that does not respect it
is a nonphysical theory. But the simple fact is that velocities do NOT
combine this way.
You really should READ what is written before you comment on it. You
shouldn't assume that I am saying what you think I am going to say.
O Source ->v
In the observer's FoR light travels every which way at c. (second
postulate) It is c w.r.t the observer. That doesn't mean that in the
observer's frame of reference the closing speed or speed of separation
with every object moving in that FoR is also c - that is silly - it is
constant c w.r.t the observer's FoR everything else has to fit in with
that. The source is simply an object moving in the observer's FoR. The
speed of light is c in the observer's FoR so the separation speed from
the source in the observer's FoR is c+v
OK, I see what you're saying.
in order to make the speed c in
the observer's FoR.
In the observer's Frame of ref light is travelling towards O at c and
the source is travelling away from that light at v separating from the
source, in the observers FoR at c+v.
Yes.
Doppler shift is derived
mathematically from that speed of separation.
No.
One wave crest is generated
O S ->v
*
Next wavecrest is generated
O S ->v
* *
Distance between wavecrests (c+v)/To where To= 1/Fo'
Because the first wavecrest has moved a distance c/To towards O from
where it was generated and the source has moved v/To away from O in the
same time. Total distance between wavecrests = c/To + v/To = (c+v)/To
If v is large enough to require relativistic effects to be taken into
consideration then To = 1/Fo' = 1/(Fo.Sqr(1-vv/cc)) from which you can
derive the relativistic Doppler equ which gives the change in frequency
caused both by the actual Doppler effect and time dilation.
Now this really must be the speed of
separation as it causes a real physical effect. Because the source has
moved between one wave-crests and the next the separation between the
wavecrests increases i.e. the wavelength increases and the frequency you
measure will be lower.
This is called Doppler shift. Now you might consider that this easily
measurable effect (Doppler is used in speed traps and can detect 20mph
with no difficulty) is evidence that light is indeed travelling away
from the source at greater than c which it is as far as you are
concerned, but this again does not invalidate the second postulate as
that says ONLY that light must travel at c relative to you the observer.
Suppose now that I am sitting on the source observing the light leaving
it and travelling towards you. You KNOW is it travelling from the source
at c+v because of the change in frequency but SR says that for Me
sitting on the source it is travelling away from me at c and producing
normal size wavelengths but because You are travelling away from me at v
the speed of the light closing with you is c-v and that is the reason
you measure a lower frequency. The wavelength hasn't changed but you and
the light have a slower relative speed so you encounter fewer in the
same time = lower frequency = Doppler shift.
So is the light separating from the source at c or c+v and is it
arriving at you at c or c-v ? Relativity always avoids the problem by
moving it to where it can't be measured. Now either explanation will
explain Doppler shift but SR insists on two physical explanations for
the same phenomena. It is not the only physical absurdity.
"The problem to be faced here, is that of explaining how it has come
about that physical scientists, almost to a man, have for so long
allowed themselves to accept a theory that demands of a clock such an
obvious impossibility as that it shall work steadily both faster and
slower than an exactly similar one." Herbert Dingle
http://blog.hasslberger.com/Dingle_SCIENCE_at_the_Crossroads.pdf
One might go one stage further and ask where the second postulate came
from. Simply Einstein considered Maxwell's wave in aether theory as
impeccable. The MMX measured the observer's speed w.r.t the aether and
always got zero and the second postulate is simply describing what an
observer stationary w.r.t the aether would experience. Having extracted
from the aether what he needed to do the maths Einstein appeared to
claim that no aether is required. What is totally ridiculous is that
Maxwell's theory is based on the concept of continuous fields and
Einstein had shown that light is in fact particulate and that therefore
Maxwell's waves do not physically exist. He promptly ignored his own
discovery and carried on with SR as if Maxwell was still impeccable.
--
--
John Kennaugh
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Lightspeed exceeded
- From: John Kennaugh
- Re: Lightspeed exceeded
- References:
- Lightspeed exceeded
- From: Maverick
- Re: Lightspeed exceeded
- From: John Kennaugh
- Re: Lightspeed exceeded
- From: PD
- Re: Lightspeed exceeded
- From: John Kennaugh
- Lightspeed exceeded
- Prev by Date: Re: Sagnac laser speedometer
- Next by Date: Re: velocity addition in STR
- Previous by thread: Re: Lightspeed exceeded
- Next by thread: Re: Lightspeed exceeded
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
