Re: DHR's invited on space trip

From: The Ghost In The Machine (ewill_at_aurigae.athghost7038suus.net)
Date: 07/10/04 

Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2004 16:02:51 GMT

In sci.physics, Sam Wormley
<swormley1@mchsi.com>
 wrote
on Sat, 10 Jul 2004 04:09:10 GMT
<40EF6BE5.AD1DFCC1@mchsi.com>:
> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>>
>> In sci.physics, Sam Wormley
>> <swormley1@mchsi.com>
>> wrote
>> on Fri, 09 Jul 2004 14:25:09 GMT
>> <40EEAAC0.46CF9FEC@mchsi.com>:
>> > Jim Greenfield wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:<40EDAE3F.C16D51DC@mchsi.com>...
>> >> > Jim Greenfield wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > What binaries "are", and what they "do", is largely derived from data
>> >> > > collected and processed on the assumption that light is NOT source
>> >> > > dependent. If, as my experiment (I am confident) would show, light is
>> >> > > c'=c+v , then binaries (and a great deal of other astronomical
>> >> > > bodies) may not be what, or where, they are (appear).
>> >> > > So binaries are highly suspect as evidence of light source
>> >> > > independence.
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >> > Did your mommy forget to tell you that thinking men and women have
>> >> > measured the speed of light over and over... realizing that it is
>> >> > a fundamental constant of nature.
>> >> >
>> >> > Now comes along Greenfield claiming we are all brainwashed and
>> >> > can't think for ourselves. He offers no data of any kind that
>> >> > contradicts that the speed of light is a constant. This untutored
>> >> > fool wishes to turn the entire science of physics upside down!
>> >>
>> >> Only a fool could not comprehend that often, when a CHANGE IN
>> >> FREQUENCY is observed, it means that less waves/time are arriving, and
>> >> therefore the waves are SLOWER, because the SOURCE IS MOVING AWAY
>> >>
>> >
>> > Learn the difference between sound waves and EM waves.
>>
>> "The"? There's more than one. :-)
>>
>> [1] Sound waves are compression/longitudinal. Light waves are
>> transverse.
>
> There are also transverse (shear) sound waves, not supported
> by either liquid or gas.

Good point.

>
>>
>> [2] Sound waves are pegged to the medium in which they travel.
>> Light waves are pegged to nothing; they travel at constant
>> speed relative to the observer, no matter what the observer
>> is doing relative to the source of the light.
>>
>> [3] Sound waves travel far more slowly than light waves, at least
>> in air at standard temperature and pressure here on Earth.
>> Sound: about 1 km/s. Light: about 3*10^5 km/s or 3*10^8 m/s.
>>
>> [4] Sound waves are far lower frequency than light waves.
>> Sound: 20Hz-20kHz. Light: 7.5*10^14 to 4.2*10^14 Hz.
>
> Although EM waves can have any frequency including the
> ranges we normally associate with sound.

True, but light rays are the ones we normally associate
with light. However, extremely low frequency (ELF)
waves are (were?) occasionally used in maritime service;
I'd have to look.

>>
>> I'll admit I wonder what alternative hypothesis
>> regarding spectroscopic binaries would fit all the other
>> observations. (One would have to exclude lightspeed
>> computations and/or measurements, in order to avoid
>> coloring the interpretation. Of course, I'm not sure what
>> other possibilities exist for binaries, since there are
>> so many of them; if one hypothesizes "two stars passing in
>> the dead of night" the number thereof would be very much lower
>> than the number we observe. Also, the closer ones can be
>> measured by the simple expediency of parallax -- the Earth
>> is 2 AU away 6 months later, and it does shift the skyfield
>> a tiny bit, but it is noticeable. Presumably spectroscopic
>> measurements are easily done, showing two sets of Fraunhofers;
>> the distance between matching lines is presumably comparable,
>> changing as the stars orbit. That would be *very* hard to
>> duplicate with the "passing in the dead of night" scenario,
>> especially when the line pairs stop and reverse direction,
>> relative to each other.)
>>
>> In any event, the increase in frequency (energy) of light
>> waves (quanta) of an approaching source, together with
>> the constant speed of light, directly imply time dialation.
>> Frequency, after all, is a measure of time.
>
> Doppler shift does not necessarily imply any time dilation
> in binary sources.

Yes it does, if one postulates constant lightspeed.... :-)
The doppler shift is a frequency change;
frequency change / constant speed = time change.

If one does not postulate constant lightspeed, of course, one
gets into nowhere interesting; too many experiments have
validated the concept. 

-- 
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Equivalence Principle and how to prove it probabilistically.
    ... sequences' enriched observer will ALTER THE one-way worldline's activity. ... ATOMS DEFINE the radio waves. ... 'Before' a RADIO wave's ENTANGLEMENT can ... change 'a' transmitter. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Reflections on an Empty Time
    ... "In quantum physics a particle can move from point A to point B ... matched waves are going to stay matched in a wave ... observed will they "collapse" into particles. ... observer makes the observation. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: THE GENERAL RELATIVITY.
    ... So we can conclude that if v and p are transverse in S, ... which is a blue shift. ... If v and p are transverse in the observer frame S' ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: New question about Longitudinal sound waves?
    ... which supports transverse waves -- air does not, but a steel bar can ... Transverse waves are physically propagated due to transverse forces (i.e. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: THE GENERAL RELATIVITY.
    ... So we can conclude that if v and p are transverse in S, ... which is a blue shift. ... If v and p are transverse in the observer frame S' ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading