| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
23 Sep 2006 07:25:24 AM |
| Object: |
does light travel at a straight line (2) ? |
hi
I guess I better rewrite this thread so that I will get my answers.
Ok, I recall from physics 101, that any observer measures the speed of
light as c.
so, that's the only constraint.
so for any photon that travels at whatever weird path and speed, we
define the general function as f(x,y,z,t).
and we need d/dt f(x,y,z,t)=c (always), and that implies =>
f(x,y,z,t)=ct+g(x,y,z)
since we didn't say anything about speed of photon but we have a
function that always gives the speed of light as c. so basically that's
the same as any observer measuring the speed of light as c.
(if this logic is wrong let me know)
at this point, one simply apply newton's law to g(x,y,z) (photon with
mass) then everything should work right?
someone point me to a video at :
http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fw/gifs/coriolis.mov
I look at this several times but don't get any connection to the "light
bend toward gravity" thing everyone is talking about. I mean, even if
nothing is moving or rotating, light still bend toward massive object
right?
PD gave a new definition of distance as:
ds^2 = dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2
this I totally don't understand, what kind of consideration or
constraint he is working under.
There must be some issues that I missed. since the only constraint from
special relativity is that everything see light as having speed c.
and what's wrong with the original definiton of distance:
ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2
thanks
.
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: does light travel at a straight line (2) ? |
23 Sep 2006 08:12:35 AM |
|
|
<perltcl@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1159014324.270580.135570@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
| hi
|
| I guess I better rewrite this thread so that I will get my answers.
|
| Ok, I recall from physics 101, that any observer measures the speed of
| light as c.
If that we true we'd never see doppler shift.
f' = f (c+v)/c
f'c = f(c+v)
f'c/f = c+v
THIS observer, me, measures the speed of light as c' = f'c/f
where c is the emission velocity, f is the emission frequency
and f' the observed frequency, so it cannot be true that ANY
observer will measure c.
Maybe the idiots doing the measuring have never studied
simple algebra or logic.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Algol/Algol.htm
Androcles
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sue..." |
|
| Title: Re: does light travel at a straight line (2) ? |
23 Sep 2006 09:15:04 AM |
|
|
Sorcerer wrote:
THIS observer, me...
Please note that the OP appears to be in a formal
degree progam.
Your conjecture about the light curve of one single
binary system does not trump all the other observations
to the contrary nor will it in any way contribute to
anyone's sucess in a formal science programe.
If you insist on spewing forth your absurdities
at least, find some grads or postdocs that are
in need of a laugh.
Sue...
measures the speed of light as c' = f'c/f
where c is the emission velocity, f is the emission frequency
and f' the observed frequency, so it cannot be true that ANY
observer will measure c.
Maybe the idiots doing the measuring have never studied
simple algebra or logic.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Algol/Algol.htm
Androcles
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: does light travel at a straight line (2) ? |
23 Sep 2006 11:06:29 AM |
|
|
"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1159020904.430744.280350@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Sorcerer wrote:
|
| >
| > THIS observer, me...
|
| Please note
that I can snip too.
Androcles
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sue..." |
|
| Title: Re: does light travel at a straight line (2) ? |
23 Sep 2006 07:37:07 AM |
|
|
wrote:
hi
I guess I better rewrite this thread so that I will get my answers.
Ok, I recall from physics 101, that any observer measures the speed of
light as c.
so, that's the only constraint.
so for any photon that travels at whatever weird path and speed, we
define the general function as f(x,y,z,t).
and we need d/dt f(x,y,z,t)=c (always), and that implies =>
f(x,y,z,t)=ct+g(x,y,z)
since we didn't say anything about speed of photon but we have a
function that always gives the speed of light as c. so basically that's
the same as any observer measuring the speed of light as c.
(if this logic is wrong let me know)
at this point, one simply apply newton's law to g(x,y,z) (photon with
mass) then everything should work right?
someone point me to a video at :
http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fw/gifs/coriolis.mov
I look at this several times but don't get any connection to the "light
bend toward gravity" thing everyone is talking about. I mean, even if
nothing is moving or rotating, light still bend toward massive object
<< right?
No... Not even close.
Imaginary photons can't obey Newton's law.
Light is descrbed by Maxell's equations
"Incident Wave Impedance"
http://www.conformity.com/0102reflectionsfig3.gif
http://www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html
"Retarded potential"
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html
Sue...
PD gave a new definition of distance as:
ds^2 = dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2
this I totally don't understand, what kind of consideration or
constraint he is working under.
There must be some issues that I missed. since the only constraint from
special relativity is that everything see light as having speed c.
and what's wrong with the original definiton of distance:
ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2
thanks
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: does light travel at a straight line (2) ? |
23 Sep 2006 07:55:22 AM |
|
|
Sue... wrote:
perltcl@yahoo.com wrote:
hi
I guess I better rewrite this thread so that I will get my answers.
Ok, I recall from physics 101, that any observer measures the speed of
light as c.
so, that's the only constraint.
so for any photon that travels at whatever weird path and speed, we
define the general function as f(x,y,z,t).
and we need d/dt f(x,y,z,t)=c (always), and that implies =>
f(x,y,z,t)=ct+g(x,y,z)
since we didn't say anything about speed of photon but we have a
function that always gives the speed of light as c. so basically that's
the same as any observer measuring the speed of light as c.
(if this logic is wrong let me know)
at this point, one simply apply newton's law to g(x,y,z) (photon with
mass) then everything should work right?
someone point me to a video at :
http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fw/gifs/coriolis.mov
I look at this several times but don't get any connection to the "light
bend toward gravity" thing everyone is talking about. I mean, even if
nothing is moving or rotating, light still bend toward massive object
<< right?
No... Not even close.
Imaginary photons can't obey Newton's law.
Light is descrbed by Maxell's equations
Do you mean only maxell's equations is required to understand the
phenomena?
Or maybe maxell's equations plus some others?
I look at the three pages, they seen very technical.
They will not help with people who tries to understand the issue.
Even if every equation and every sentence pose no difficulty to the
reader.
I don't think how one can approach these pages and come out with an
understanding.
Can give a list keywords that one must understand in order to fully
grasp the issues.
"Incident Wave Impedance"
http://www.conformity.com/0102reflectionsfig3.gif
http://www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html
"Retarded potential"
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html
Sue...
PD gave a new definition of distance as:
ds^2 = dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2
this I totally don't understand, what kind of consideration or
constraint he is working under.
There must be some issues that I missed. since the only constraint from
special relativity is that everything see light as having speed c.
and what's wrong with the original definiton of distance:
ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2
thanks
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sue..." |
|
| Title: Re: does light travel at a straight line (2) ? |
23 Sep 2006 08:38:15 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Sue... wrote:
wrote:
hi
I guess I better rewrite this thread so that I will get my answers.
Ok, I recall from physics 101, that any observer measures the speed of
light as c.
so, that's the only constraint.
so for any photon that travels at whatever weird path and speed, we
define the general function as f(x,y,z,t).
and we need d/dt f(x,y,z,t)=c (always), and that implies =>
f(x,y,z,t)=ct+g(x,y,z)
since we didn't say anything about speed of photon but we have a
function that always gives the speed of light as c. so basically that's
the same as any observer measuring the speed of light as c.
(if this logic is wrong let me know)
at this point, one simply apply newton's law to g(x,y,z) (photon with
mass) then everything should work right?
someone point me to a video at :
http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fw/gifs/coriolis.mov
I look at this several times but don't get any connection to the "light
bend toward gravity" thing everyone is talking about. I mean, even if
nothing is moving or rotating, light still bend toward massive object
<< right?
No... Not even close.
Imaginary photons can't obey Newton's law.
Light is descrbed by Maxell's equations
Do you mean only maxell's equations is required to understand the
phenomena?
Alice and the Hatter would probably find another way to do it.
Or maybe maxell's equations plus some others?
You *really* need to do it with Maxwell's equations.
Otherwise you will making up phoney phenomena
as you just did.
I look at the three pages, they seem very technical.
It is not so much technical as it is difficult to visualise.
2D models are too incomplete to descrbe what
must occur in 3D development of Maxwell fields.
The water flow through a flat hose is zero no matter
how wide you make it. Eh?
Once you learn to spot what is little more than than
a plane, rotated to describe a volume you can breeze
right through the descriptions, just as you do when you
recognise Pythagora's relation.
Look at some pictures here and don't let all the
elaborate notation intimidate you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_integral
They will not help with people who tries to understand the issue.
Even if every equation and every sentence pose no difficulty to the
reader.
Nature doesn't use any equations and has never made a mistake. :o)
I don't think how one can approach these pages and come out with an
understanding.
ElectroMAGNETISM (light) is what they are about. I know of
no subject where you can claim competence by learing only
half of the the relevant material.
Can give a list keywords that one must understand in order to fully
grasp the issues.
Issues? <<does light travel at a straight line (2) ? >>
Try
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22ripple+tank%22&btnG=Google+Search
....and don't let the Einstein worshippers get you sidetracked
with their ancient debate about 'aether'. They can't even
write a definition for it, much less show whether it exit or
not.
Think about describing dust in a cyclone as you read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_integral
Sue...
"Incident Wave Impedance"
http://www.conformity.com/0102reflectionsfig3.gif
http://www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html
"Retarded potential"
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html
Sue...
PD gave a new definition of distance as:
ds^2 = dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2
this I totally don't understand, what kind of consideration or
constraint he is working under.
There must be some issues that I missed. since the only constraint from
special relativity is that everything see light as having speed c.
and what's wrong with the original definiton of distance:
ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2
thanks
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: does light travel at a straight line (2) ? |
23 Sep 2006 09:02:02 AM |
|
|
"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1159018695.187686.142450@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
| wrote:
| > Sue... wrote:
| > > wrote:
| > > > hi
| > > >
| > > > I guess I better rewrite this thread so that I will get my answers.
| > > >
| > > > Ok, I recall from physics 101, that any observer measures the speed
of
| > > > light as c.
| > > > so, that's the only constraint.
| > > > so for any photon that travels at whatever weird path and speed, we
| > > > define the general function as f(x,y,z,t).
| > > > and we need d/dt f(x,y,z,t)=c (always), and that implies =>
| > > > f(x,y,z,t)=ct+g(x,y,z)
| > > > since we didn't say anything about speed of photon but we have a
| > > > function that always gives the speed of light as c. so basically
that's
| > > > the same as any observer measuring the speed of light as c.
| > > > (if this logic is wrong let me know)
| > > >
| > > > at this point, one simply apply newton's law to g(x,y,z) (photon
with
| > > > mass) then everything should work right?
| > > >
| > > > someone point me to a video at :
| > > > http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fw/gifs/coriolis.mov
| > > >
| > > > I look at this several times but don't get any connection to the
"light
| > > > bend toward gravity" thing everyone is talking about. I mean, even
if
| > > > nothing is moving or rotating, light still bend toward massive
object
| > > << right?
| > >
| > > No... Not even close.
| > > Imaginary photons can't obey Newton's law.
| > >
| > > Light is descrbed by Maxell's equations
| >
| > Do you mean only maxell's equations is required to understand the
| > phenomena?
|
| Alice and the Hatter would probably find another way to do it.
|
| > Or maybe maxell's equations plus some others?
|
| You *really* need to do it with Maxwell's equations.
| Otherwise you will making up phoney phenomena
| as you just did.
|
|
| > I look at the three pages, they seem very technical.
|
| It is not so much technical as it is difficult to visualise.
| 2D models are too incomplete to descrbe what
| must occur in 3D development of Maxwell fields.
|
| The water flow through a flat hose is zero no matter
| how wide you make it. Eh?
|
| Once you learn to spot what is little more than than
| a plane, rotated to describe a volume you can breeze
| right through the descriptions, just as you do when you
| recognise Pythagora's relation.
|
|
| Look at some pictures here and don't let all the
| elaborate notation intimidate you:
|
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_integral
|
| > They will not help with people who tries to understand the issue.
| > Even if every equation and every sentence pose no difficulty to the
| > reader.
|
| Nature doesn't use any equations and has never made a mistake. :o)
|
|
| > I don't think how one can approach these pages and come out with an
| > understanding.
|
| ElectroMAGNETISM (light) is what they are about. I know of
| no subject where you can claim competence by learing only
| half of the the relevant material.
|
| > Can give a list keywords that one must understand in order to fully
| > grasp the issues.
|
| Issues? <<does light travel at a straight line (2) ? >>
| Try
| http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22ripple+tank%22&btnG=Google+Search
|
| ...and don't let the Einstein worshippers get you sidetracked
| with their ancient debate about 'aether'. They can't even
| write a definition for it, much less show whether it exit or
| not.
Don't let aether worshippers let you get sidetracked with
rippling tanks.
A spinning bullet is a helix in spacetime, but spacetime is
a mathematical construct that allows all time to exist
everywhen just as all marks on a ruler exist everywhere.
'Really, this is what is meant by the Fourth Dimension, though some people
who talk about the Fourth Dimension do not know they mean it. It is only
another way of looking at Time. There is no difference between Time and any
of the three dimensions of Space except that our consciousness moves along
with it.' -- Herbert George Wells - "The Time Machine" - 1895.
"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." -- Einstein
Just remember that a spinning bullet is not a helix except in spacetime.
The philosophical difficulty with spacetime is that the future is
predetermined,
and hence grist for the mill of soothsayers, fortune tellers, astrologers
and horologists since man first saw an eclipse.
What sign were you born under?
Me? err.... Cepheus. Tell me how much money I'll win.
Certainly... cross my palm with silver and I'll be glad to.
| Think about describing dust in a cyclone as you read:
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_integral
|
| Sue...
|
| >
| "Incident Wave Impedance"
| http://www.conformity.com/0102reflectionsfig3.gif
| http://www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html
| "Retarded potential"
| http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html
| > >
| > > Sue...
| > >
| > > >
| > > > PD gave a new definition of distance as:
| > > > ds^2 = dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2
| > > >
| > > > this I totally don't understand, what kind of consideration or
| > > > constraint he is working under.
| > > > There must be some issues that I missed. since the only constraint
from
| > > > special relativity is that everything see light as having speed c.
| > > > and what's wrong with the original definiton of distance:
| > > > ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2
| > > >
| > > > thanks
|
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: does light travel at a straight line (2) ? |
23 Sep 2006 10:13:42 AM |
|
|
Sue... wrote:
perltcl@yahoo.com wrote:
hi
I guess I better rewrite this thread so that I will get my answers.
Ok, I recall from physics 101, that any observer measures the speed of
light as c.
so, that's the only constraint.
so for any photon that travels at whatever weird path and speed, we
define the general function as f(x,y,z,t).
and we need d/dt f(x,y,z,t)=c (always), and that implies =>
f(x,y,z,t)=ct+g(x,y,z)
since we didn't say anything about speed of photon but we have a
function that always gives the speed of light as c. so basically that's
the same as any observer measuring the speed of light as c.
(if this logic is wrong let me know)
at this point, one simply apply newton's law to g(x,y,z) (photon with
mass) then everything should work right?
someone point me to a video at :
http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fw/gifs/coriolis.mov
I look at this several times but don't get any connection to the "light
bend toward gravity" thing everyone is talking about. I mean, even if
nothing is moving or rotating, light still bend toward massive object
<< right?
No... Not even close.
Imaginary photons can't obey Newton's law.
If take this statement as, photon must have 0 mass but still need to
follow the curved path from observation without contradict newton's
law. if I can resolve this mathematically, does that I mean I'm done?
Light is descrbed by Maxell's equations
"Incident Wave Impedance"
http://www.conformity.com/0102reflectionsfig3.gif
http://www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html
"Retarded potential"
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html
Sue...
PD gave a new definition of distance as:
ds^2 = dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2
this I totally don't understand, what kind of consideration or
constraint he is working under.
There must be some issues that I missed. since the only constraint from
special relativity is that everything see light as having speed c.
and what's wrong with the original definiton of distance:
ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2
thanks
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sue..." |
|
| Title: Re: does light travel at a straight line (2) ? |
23 Sep 2006 10:48:24 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Sue... wrote:
wrote:
hi
I guess I better rewrite this thread so that I will get my answers.
Ok, I recall from physics 101, that any observer measures the speed of
light as c.
so, that's the only constraint.
so for any photon that travels at whatever weird path and speed, we
define the general function as f(x,y,z,t).
and we need d/dt f(x,y,z,t)=c (always), and that implies =>
f(x,y,z,t)=ct+g(x,y,z)
since we didn't say anything about speed of photon but we have a
function that always gives the speed of light as c. so basically that's
the same as any observer measuring the speed of light as c.
(if this logic is wrong let me know)
at this point, one simply apply newton's law to g(x,y,z) (photon with
mass) then everything should work right?
someone point me to a video at :
http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fw/gifs/coriolis.mov
I look at this several times but don't get any connection to the "light
bend toward gravity" thing everyone is talking about. I mean, even if
nothing is moving or rotating, light still bend toward massive object
<< right?
No... Not even close.
Imaginary photons can't obey Newton's law.
If take this statement as, photon must have 0 mass but still need to
follow the curved path from observation without contradict newton's
law. if I can resolve this mathematically, does that I mean I'm done?
Photons are imaginary. They do whatever the theorist using
them defines them to do. If the theorist says they wear
wrist watches, carry magnetic monopoles, explore all
paths and fly on gossamer wings, then, they wear
wrist watches, carry magnetic monopoles, explore all
paths and fly on gossamer wings.
You are asking a classical 3d + 1t question about lignt.
You can't apply the answer from some other formalism
just because the notation look simpler and expect it
to work.
Sue...
Light is descrbed by Maxell's equations
"Incident Wave Impedance"
http://www.conformity.com/0102reflectionsfig3.gif
http://www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html
"Retarded potential"
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html
Sue...
PD gave a new definition of distance as:
ds^2 = dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2
this I totally don't understand, what kind of consideration or
constraint he is working under.
There must be some issues that I missed. since the only constraint from
special relativity is that everything see light as having speed c.
and what's wrong with the original definiton of distance:
ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2
thanks
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
