Re: "C" is a variable

In sci.physics, Sorcerer
<Headmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote
on Sun, 13 Aug 2006 21:09:05 GMT
<RxMDg.41854$Ca.18693@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:t064r3-665.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| In sci.physics, Sorcerer
| <Headmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
| wrote
| on Sun, 13 Aug 2006 16:17:35 GMT
| <zgIDg.89319$F8.56010@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
| >
| > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message
| > news:hoa2r3-jim.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | In sci.physics, Sorcerer
| > | <Headmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
| > | wrote
| > | on Sat, 12 Aug 2006 18:01:32 GMT
| > | <0IoDg.82366$9d4.80752@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
| > | >
| > | > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
| > message
| > | > news:63a1r3-nln.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | > | In sci.physics, Sorcerer
| > | > | <Headmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
| > | > | wrote
| > | > | on Sat, 12 Aug 2006 10:27:49 GMT
| > | > | <F2iDg.81194$9d4.81125@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
| > | > | >
| > | > | > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
in
| > | > message
| > | > | > news:1530r3-gd7.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | > |
| > | > | [snippage]
| > | > |
| > | > | > | OK. And how would you measure this "C"?
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Sensible people measure distance / time.
| > | > | > Morons measure from point A to point A in time t'A-tA.
| > | > |
| > | > | And if B is moving relative to A, how does one measure the
distance
| > | > | between A and B?
| > | >
| > | > It's not sensible to weigh yourself on a bathroom scale while
| > | > jumping up and down. I specifically said "sensible people".
| > | > Einstein built his crazy theory on the very thing you suggest
| > | > and said it would take the same time for the light to get back
| > | > to A from B as it takes to get from A to B, even when A and B
| > | > are in relative motion.
| > |
| > | OK. Assuming you're referring to a light beam moving from A to B,
| > | the simplest method would be to introduce a third point B_1, which
| > | would be a known short distance removed from B. Call this distance d.
| > | One can then simply determine
| > |
| > | c = d/t
| >
| > No, c = [f(t+h) - f(t)] / h, B-B_1 = f(h) which is not h.
| > h is a very small amount of time, as near zero as possible without
| > being zero. The LINEAR function c(t) takes the photon from A to A.
|
| Hang on a moment; I'm describing an alternate method
| of measurement from Einstein's (and IINM suggested by you).
| In any event, f() : time -> velocity has a discontinuity
| at the mirror; this causes problems. Ergo, I've eliminated
| the mirror.

Ok...
Well, there is no need to rehash Newton's calculus, it is Einstein's
calculus
that bothers me, and he used smoke and mirrors as any good magician
should.

Well, he used mirrors, anyway. I don't see too much smoke in his
paperwork. :-)

We sorcerers try to get by without the mirrors and just use
a smokescreen to hide our shenanigans, there should be a puff as we
make relativity disappear.

Wilson wants to count the inches between his nose and his virtual nose
when he looks at his fizzog to shave, so I did.
Place rule between nose a mirror, count:
0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,11,10,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0.
Distance between Wilson's noses, zero.
Would you please inform Wilson that some of us can count backwards
when the rays are reversed, particularly when the numbers are backwards?
He failed 2nd grade by not learning "take away" in hard sums class, playin'
hookey.




| >
| > "In the first place it is clear that the equations must be linear on
account
| > of the properties of homogeneity which we attribute to space and
time." --
| > Einstein.
| >
| > In the second place it is clear that c(t) is not a linear function of
time,
| > it reverses
| >
| > direction at B (or B1, which takes less time to reach and we want the
| > smallest h).
| > >
| > | where t is the time it takes for the lightbeam to traverse the
distance
| > | between B and B_1.
| >
| > It doesn't get to B, it reflects at B_1.
| > "Hence, if x' be chosen infinitesimally small." -Einstein.
|
| Not the way I'd want to set it up. It simply goes straight *through*.
| If you like it can be absorbed some distance later at B_2, by a dark
| wall which heats up a fraction (and is irrelevant to the actual
| lightspeed measurement). Infrared photons of the wall are absorbed
| elsewhere by the experiment but wouldn't otherwise be a problem,
| and considering I'm thinking along the lines of a 1 mW CW laser anyway,
| the heat buildup should be minimal.

Yeah, but as you've already said, those solar ions have lots of speeds,
so is a blue laser the same speed as a red?

No, in a non-vacuum. However, in a vacuum I for one am not certain,
mostly because of, again, kinetic molecular theory.


| >
| > |
| > | Now...if A is moving with an unknown speed or velocity relative to B,
| > | and issues a light beam towards B, what would B measure as its speed,
| > | and why?
| >
| > What are you asking me for?
|
| Because you reject SR and therefore presumably have an alternate in
| mind. I want to know which alternate, if that's possible.
|
| There are several models available. All of these assume a
| 2-dimensional (x,t) coordinate space; add a cos() as you wish.
| v is the velocity of B relative to A; positive v means B is moving
| towards A.

A .... +v <---- ...... B

Confusing....
I want +v when B goes away from A (just to be conventional, you understand)
that way I have increasing x relative to A.

This is paper on desk, showing vector addition of velocity:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Vectorvel.gif

That's +x and +y for the desk, 0x and +y for the paper.
It's sorta conventional.





|
| [1] SR: of course. B-to-B_1 measures lightspeed c.
| [2] Newtonian and Frictionless Aether Theory: B-to-B_1 measures c+v.
| [3] Absolute Rigid Aether Theory: c-w, where w is the absolute motion
| of B; v of A relative to B is irrelevant.
| [4] Probabilistic Particle Jump Theory: c-w, where w is the absolute
| motion of B relative to the cubic lattice.
| [5] IRT/MM: Inconsistent; the theory is purported to be an upgrading
| of SR but with an absolute S-Matrix.
| [6] Rigid Fixed H-Like-Aether: c-w+w_0*exp(Kd) for some K, where w_0 is
A's
| absolute motion relative to the aether and w is B's absolute motion
| relative to the aether.
| [7] Frictionless Fixed H-Like-Aether: c-w.
| [8] Frictionless Variable H-Like-Aether: Unknown.
| [9] H-Aether: Unknown.
|

[10] Plain old Newtonian Philosophy.


RULES OF REASONING IN PHILOSOPHY.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RULE I.
We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true
and sufficient to explain their appearances.

To this purpose the philosophers say that Nature does nothing in vain, and
more is in vain when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with simplicity,
and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes.

OK. And the predictions for this model are ... ?







| > "But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured
in
| > the stationary system, with the velocity c-v, so that x'/(c-v) =
| > t." -Einstein.
| >
| > Of course A could be approaching B, in which case c+v, or it could
| > have some other angle, c+v.cos(phi).
|
| For what it's worth. Bear also in mind that if v is not straight
| towards A, then phi will vary according to time, injecting Sagnac
| and/or aiming logic into the mix.

For what it is worth,
http://tinyurl.com/hvstq

Just throw that stupid gamma out.

Unnecessary. All we need to is postulate absolute time everywhere and
use the following transform:

t' = t
x' = x-vt

and everything will be fine. We'll have to start looking for some
interesting explanations of supernovae, to be sure, but I'm sure that
one can come up with something.




|
| >
| > |
| > | Bear also in mind that a common clock between B and B_1
| >
| > The light reflects at B_1.
|
| The light does *not* reflect at B_1 in my variant. This is not
| a TWLS; it's an OWLS.
|
| > "Hence, if x' be chosen infinitesimally small." -Einstein.
| >
| >
| > makes this a
| > | partial TWLS if one is not careful; the signal has to travel from both
| > | of B and B_1 to the clock. Since the clock can't be in two places at
| > | once
| >
| > Footnote:
| >
| > 3. We shall not here discuss the inexactitude which lurks in the concept
of
| > simultaneity of two events at approximately the same place, which can
only
| > be removed by an abstraction.
| >
| > Why are you discussing an abstraction? Sommerfeld said that is naughty.
|
| You wish concrete, see a building materials supply house. :-)

I'm not building castles in the air, of course I want concrete.
It is cuckoos that lay their eggs in other bird's nests.



| >
| > | at least one of the signals has to travel some distance from the
| > | detector, and that takes time -- time that must somehow be accounted
| > | for, especially since the signal cannot automatically be assumed to
| > | be moving at constant speed.
| > |
| > | The best I can do there is to take two clocks, starting
| > | them at B_{1/2}, synchronize them as best I can, then
| > | slowly (or at least conformally) move them to B and B_1.
| > | After the beam passes through the detectors (and stops
| > | both clocks) one can then simply read the clocks.
| >
| > No need, they are at approximately the same place, we shall not here
| > discuss the inexactitude which lurks in the concept of simultaneity of
| > two events at approximately the same place, which can only be removed
| > by an abstraction.
|
| OK, so if B-to-B_1 is 30 cm in length how does one prevent a 1 ns
| total delay from the endpoints to the clock?

Use a turtle. The math is the same.

I'm not sure a turtle can travel 30 cm in 1 ns.


|
| How "approximate" did you wish this to be?

Ask Sommerfeld. He said we can't discuss it.

| Bear also in mind space
| may not be isotropic; absolute aether theories in particular lead
| to a variant of the "paddling canoe" or "headwind/crabwind" problem
| (which is what MMX was designed to measure, with a spectacular failure).

I don't believe in Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, aether or wavelengths, they
are all figments of the imagination.

Wavelengths are real enough; among other things diffraction events are
caused because light has a wavelength.

Space is the absence of anything and
has
no properties. Full metal jacket lead bullets spin through it and so do
photons.




|
| >
| > |
| > |
| > | > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Rocket/Rocket.htm
| > | >
| > | > Study that and you'll see how the trick is done.
| > | >
| > | > Androcles




--
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.
.

Quantcast