Re: Uncle Dickhead, So fucking what? LOL

In sci.physics, eightwings2002@xxxxxxxxx
<eightwings2002@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote
on 1 May 2005 05:14:52 -0700
<1114949692.833267.10470@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> Sam Wormley wrote:
>> Schoenfeld wrote:
>> >
>> > Constant photon speed violates Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle.
>> > Simple, really.
>> >
>>
>> Schoenfeld *fails* to understand the nature of light and HUP.
>
> This is so funny. Wormley, You have no fucking clue as to the nature of
> light either. So shut the *** up, you insufferably pompous dickhead.
>
> Louis Savain
>
> The Silver Bullet: Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix it
> http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Cosas/Reliability.htm
>

I take it you have a webpage describing the details on the
nature of light?

The best I can do is from your Website:

http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Crackpots/physicists.htm

I'll agree, though, that nothing can move in spacetime; the
difficulties here are primarily lingual. Briefly, movement
involves translation in space; this translation, for uniform
movement, has a component that is linear with respect to t.
(It is *not* linear with respect to v, for various reasons
related to SR. However, v is accurately and correctly
measurable regardless.) Were one to plot a moving point in
4-dimensions, one would get a tilted (but unmoving) line.
An accelerating point would yield an unmoving curve.
A stationary point yields a line perpendicular to the
xyz space, parallel to the t axis.

Visualizing the line or curve incurs some difficulties,
as we can only see two dimensions (the third is deduced
from such things as relative eye position; closer objects
require us to force our eyes inward ["cross-eyed"]) and
experience another (time) by various effects, the most
obvious of which is the observation of a regular process,
such as the ticking of a clock, though there are others,
such as the cooling of one's dinner or an iron ingot,
the watching of a pot filled with water on a burner (it
does boil, eventually), the movement of the sun, stars,
and planets, from the Earth's rotation and revolution,
and their own proper motions, etc.

The mathematical perspective of an object's movement can be
expressed using the Lorentz transform:

x_A = (x_O - v * t_O) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
y_A = y_O
z_A = z_O
t_A = (t_O - v * x_O/c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

This transform is invertable:

x_O = (x_A + v * t_A) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
y_O = y_A
z_O = z_A
t_O = (t_A + v * x_A/c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

and predicts that x_O^2+y_O^2+z_O^2-c^2t_O^2 = 0
remains 0, with the corollary that lightspeed is constant
(in vacuo). As far as experimentation has shown thus far,
this prediction is consistent with observation, though
no one's tried H. Wilson's experiment yet. [*] (We have tried
measuring the lightspeed from the gamma rays of moving
and decaying muons. We've also measured the time it takes
for moving muons to decay, in a storage ring. Both of
these show good evidence for SR.)

For most SR problems y and z are ignored; however, there are
some minor problems in properly measuring them, because of the
changing x_A component.

The term 1 / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) is commonly termed "gamma" (although
Einstein used "beta" in his works). I often use 'g', for
simplicity in ASCII; the Lorentz transform therefore can be
rewritten

x_A = (x_O - v * t_O) * g
t_A = (t_O - v * x_O/c^2) * g

A number of people use the form

x' = (x - v * t) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
t' = (t - v * x/c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

which is not quite as clear IMO, as it doesn't identify which
bits are with which observers. Einstein used the coordinates
x, y, z, and t where I would use x_O, y_O, z_O, and t_O;
he also used chi, eta, zeta, and tau where I would use
x_A, y_A, z_A, and t_A (and others might use x', y', z', or t').

Others eliminate c entirely, by a judicious choice of
units. For example, one can use what I term a 'nil' --
the distance light travels in a nanosecond, 29.9792458
cm exactly, or just shy of a foot -- and nanoseconds in
the calculations. In such calculations, c = 1 nil/ns.
Others might use light-years and years (1 light-year
is approximately 9.4605362 * 10^15 m).

This leads to the rather pretty form

x_A = (x_O - v * t_O) * g
t_A = (t_O - v * x_O) * g

where g = 1/sqrt(1-v^2). Of course for terrestrial
experiments v is rather small -- 0.0000001 nil/ns is the
speed of a car moving along the highway at 67 mph -- and
can never exceed 1. c does not vanish entirely, either --
its units remain, for dimensional consistency.

As long as it's clear, it's not too big of a deal.

This transform does *not* address such things as the Airy radius
and the photoelectric effect.

As for the accurate measurement of v, as A passes by
O: that's fairly simple. O lays down a track with two
endpoints; the first point is at his origin, the second
at some distance d away, a distance that he's measured
beforehand. He then waits for A to pass. noting A's
leading (or trailing) edge as he does so.

If A passes by O at time t_O = 0 (which O can directly observe),
A will pass by O's second mark at time d/v + d/c, as again
observed by O (who is constrained to his origin).

Since lightspeed is c everywhere, this works fine; gamma here
does not get involved. Of course A might be a little annoyed
that O's track is too short (from his perspective), but
that's his problem, and if A is a subatomic particle there's
not much A can do about it as subatomic particles don't
get annoyed, or even think.

So, have I defrauded you yet? :-)

[*] I don't know if anyone tried to do anything with the
Huyguens probe relative to Cassini. A paper was
apparently slated, but later withdrawn.

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