Re: Does the Electron Neutrino Have Mass and Charge?

From: kenseto (kenseto_at_erinet.com)
Date: 06/30/04 

Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 09:50:04 -0400

"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message
news:cbtue4$ig4$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
> kenseto wrote:
> > "Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in
message
> > news:cbs1n3$g33$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
> >
> >>kenseto wrote:
>
>
>
> [snip]
>
>
>
>
> >>>>>f' = f(Fab/Faa)
> >>>>>Where Faa=frequency of a standard light source in A's frame.
> >>>>> Fab=frequency of an identical light source in B's frame as
> >>>>>measured by A.
> >>>>
> >>>>1) What is a "standard light source"?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>How about H-Alpha
> >>
> >>"H-alpha" is a certain spectral line of hydrogen, not a light source.
> >
> >
> > That's OK it will still show the shift
>
> And that still does not answer my question what a "standard light
> source" is.

<sigh> ...hydrogen is the light source.
>
>
> >>>>2) Where in the above formula do I put in the absolute motion of the
> >>>>detector?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>There is no need for the absolute motion.
> >
> >
> >>You said above (quote for convenience):
> >>"If the point is moving (absolute motion of the detector) then you will
> >>detect frequency shift."
> >
> >
> > So?
>
> Read on. My question comes directly below. You ignored it.
>
>
> >>I then asked you to give a formula for this.
> >>
> >>So why did you give a formula now which doesn't involve absolute
> >>motion???
>
> See? That is my question. Try reading all of these sentences again,
> together, and then please answer that question.

<sigh> frequency shift is a direct measure of the state of absolute motion
of the
observer.
>
>
>
> >>>Besides you would not know
> >>>the value of absolute motion of the detector.
> >>
> >>Well, couldn't I measure the absolute motion of the detector by
> >>looking how big the detected frequency shift is? According to
> >>you, above, those two things are related.
>
> Could I, or couldn't I?

Frequency shift is a direct measure of the absolute motion of the observer.
>
>
>
> >>>>3) What are f and f'? The emitted frequency and the measured
frequency?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>f is the frequency of a specific light source. f' is the predicted
value
> >>>of the same specific light source in the observed frame.
> >>
> >>Thanks for the explanation. But a minor nitpick:
> >>Frames aren't observed. Do you mean "frame of the observer"?
>
> Did you mean that?

The frame that is moving wrt the observer is the observed frame.
>
>
>
> [snip]
>
>
> >>>>b) this formula simply says that the frequency shift is the same for
all
> >>>>frequencies. BFD.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Will it is a big ucking deal.
> >>
> >>Huh? This sentence fragment didn't even make sense grammatically.
>
> Care to explain what you meant?

Do you want me to explain what "it is a big fucking deal" mean?
>
>
>
> >>>>This doesn't help one in *predicting* the actual
> >>>>frequency shift, without knowing in advance from experiment (measure
Faa
> >>>>and Fab) what the frequency shift is! In other words: your formula is
> >>>>rather useless.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>In SR you have to measure the relative velocity. That's the same thing
> >>>as measuring the Fab only a bit more complicated.
> >>
> >>Err, in your model, one has to know *two* things: Faa and Fab. In SR,
> >>knowing only one thing, the relative velocity, is enough.
> >
> >
> > NO...in SR you have to know two things too....you have to know the speed
of
> > light.
>
> Which is already known. One does not have it measure it anymore.
>
>
> > In MM Faa is known.
>
> From what?

>From one time measurement.
>
>
> > All you need to do is to measure Fab.
> > BTW how do you measure relative velocity?
>
> By measuring how the distance between two things changes, and dividing
> this change in distance by the time it took.

How does an observer measures the distance change for an object moving
relative to him?
>
>
> >>>Besides, using relative velocity
> >>>to predict frequency shift you have to know whether the source is
moving
> >>>toward you or away from you.
> >>
> >>Since velocity is a vector, the direction is already contained in it.
> >
> >
> > But you still have to determine the direction of the vector.
>
> Yes. So what? That is included in determining the velocity.

So it is more complicated than measuring Fab.
>
>
>
> >>>With my equation all you have to do is making the Fab measurement.
> >>
> >>And you have to know Faa.
> >
> >
> > Faa is measured one time....
>
> So, you propose that one uses a standard frequency here? The H-alpha
> line you mentioned above?

Sure why not.
>
>
> > then it can be used in all subsequence calculations.
> > In SR the speed of light is measured one time and it is used for all
> > subsequence calculations.
>
> Nice that we agree on that.

Yes. So now you agree that my equation to predict frequency shift is just
as meaningful as the SR equation?

Ken Seto