| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Spaceman" |
| Date: |
12 Feb 2006 06:33:42 PM |
| Object: |
Doppler effect on the speed of light |
If light is supposely constant for all,
how could a doppler effect happen at all
to light without a relative speed being the cause?
.
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Doppler effect on the speed of light |
14 Feb 2006 01:38:31 AM |
|
|
Spaceman wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139887885.464865.272300@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Prove it is a fact then. Provide a reference that states exactly what
| you are saying.
Look up any defintion of such Eric.
Here is one
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meter
Then open your eyes.
and you can just ignore it again as you will.
"It is defined as the length of the path travelled by light in absolute
vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second."
d = v * t
Yea that was hard. Congratulations on being unable to read.
| speed = dx^i/dt / | dx^i/dt |
Nope.
Right, for the wrong reasons.
Should have been speed = | dx^i/dt |. What I wrote was actually the
direction of the velocity, but since you know nothing I am not
surprised you missed it.
speed = d/t
Wrong, spaceshit. That is average speed, and only in one dimension.
Speed is the absolute value of the velocity. In one dimension it is
|dx/dt|, in 3 it is |dx^i/dt|.
You saying basic algebra is wrong again Eric?
d=d/t is what it states using such basic algebra but we know
that is just plain wrong for algebra but accepted by morons
like Eric..
LOL
LOL indeed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Doppler effect on the speed of light |
14 Feb 2006 10:55:50 AM |
|
|
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139902711.287020.96950@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
|
| Spaceman wrote:
| > "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:1139887885.464865.272300@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| > | Prove it is a fact then. Provide a reference that states exactly what
| > | you are saying.
| >
| > Look up any defintion of such Eric.
| > Here is one
| > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meter
| > Then open your eyes.
| > and you can just ignore it again as you will.
|
| "It is defined as the length of the path travelled by light in absolute
| vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second."
|
| d = v * t
|
| Yea that was hard. Congratulations on being unable to read.
meter = length of path / time it took to travel length of path.
still comes up
a distance = a speed.
ignoring such is your problem
not mine.
| > speed = d/t
|
| Wrong, spaceshit. That is average speed, and only in one dimension.
average whatever..
who cares.
it is still a speed.
| Speed is the absolute value of the velocity.
There are no absolutes in relativity.
you lose.
LOL
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Doppler effect on the speed of light |
14 Feb 2006 03:25:09 PM |
|
|
Spaceman wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139902711.287020.96950@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
|
| Spaceman wrote:
| > "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:1139887885.464865.272300@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| > | Prove it is a fact then. Provide a reference that states exactly what
| > | you are saying.
| >
| > Look up any defintion of such Eric.
| > Here is one
| > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meter
| > Then open your eyes.
| > and you can just ignore it again as you will.
|
| "It is defined as the length of the path travelled by light in absolute
| vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second."
|
| d = v * t
|
| Yea that was hard. Congratulations on being unable to read.
meter = length of path / time it took to travel length of path.
still comes up
a distance = a speed.
ignoring such is your problem
not mine.
Did you even graduate highschool? You have such horrible reading
comprehension.
c = 299,792,458m/s
299,792,458 m/s * 1/299,792,458 s = 1 m.
d = v*t
Just becuase you are stupid does not mean everyone else is.
| > speed = d/t
|
| Wrong, spaceshit. That is average speed, and only in one dimension.
average whatever..
who cares.
it is still a speed.
You are wrong, but you don't care. That doesn't surprise me.
| Speed is the absolute value of the velocity.
There are no absolutes in relativity.
you lose.
LOL
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Doppler effect on the speed of light |
14 Feb 2006 03:35:51 PM |
|
|
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139952309.204348.289200@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
|
| Spaceman wrote:
| > "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:1139902711.287020.96950@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
| > |
| > | Spaceman wrote:
| > | > "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
| > | > news:1139887885.464865.272300@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| > | > | Prove it is a fact then. Provide a reference that states exactly
what
| > | > | you are saying.
| > | >
| > | > Look up any defintion of such Eric.
| > | > Here is one
| > | > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meter
| > | > Then open your eyes.
| > | > and you can just ignore it again as you will.
| > |
| > | "It is defined as the length of the path travelled by light in
absolute
| > | vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second."
| > |
| > | d = v * t
| > |
| > | Yea that was hard. Congratulations on being unable to read.
| >
| > meter = length of path / time it took to travel length of path.
| > still comes up
| > a distance = a speed.
| > ignoring such is your problem
| > not mine.
|
| Did you even graduate highschool? You have such horrible reading
| comprehension.
|
| c = 299,792,458m/s
no *****.
a speed.
| 299,792,458 m/s * 1/299,792,458 s = 1 m.
|
| d = v*t
yup
| Just becuase you are stupid does not mean everyone else is.
Just because you can not see the problem with
a distance based upon a speed, does not mean
I am stupid.
In fact it means you are.
LOL
| You are wrong, but you don't care. That doesn't surprise me.
I am not wrong,
The distance is being derived from the use of a speed.
What don't you get about c being a speed?
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Doppler effect on the speed of light |
15 Feb 2006 07:00:19 AM |
|
|
In sci.physics, Spaceman
<Realspace@comcast.not>
wrote
on Tue, 14 Feb 2006 16:35:51 -0500
<36CdnW1AzLyz0G_eRVn-iA@comcast.com>:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139952309.204348.289200@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
|
[snip]
| Just becuase you are stupid does not mean everyone else is.
Just because you can not see the problem with
a distance based upon a speed, does not mean
I am stupid.
In fact it means you are.
LOL
It is indeed true that the meter is defined based on an
assumed constant speed. Since no experiment has ever
measured any other speed for light in vacuo (within
experimental error), however, it's practical enough for
most scientific work, methinks.
The old Krypton-86 definition in particular resulted in
errors of about 1 part per billion, if memory serves;
the new standard is more accurately measureable.
Of course the old platinum-iridium bar is even less accurate.
It might as well be made out of rubber now, though I
suspsect they'll keep it in a museum somewhere. :-)
| You are wrong, but you don't care. That doesn't surprise me.
I am not wrong,
The distance is being derived from the use of a speed.
What don't you get about c being a speed?
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Doppler effect on the speed of light |
12 Feb 2006 09:19:16 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
Spitshit wrote:
"OG" <owen@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote in message
news:45a2osF5m276U1@individual.net...
|
| "Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
| news:O42dnSHWvqF9TnLenZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@comcast.com...
| > If light is supposely constant for all,
| > how could a doppler effect happen at all
| > to light without a relative speed being the cause?
| >
|
| Look it up on google and think about it a bit.
You don't know huh?
Google does not have "proof" of such either.
Seems there is a problem with it.
:)
Spitshit, you don't understand Doppler shift... it has to
do with measured shifts in frequency and wavelength of
the EM radiation and is observer dependent. The speed of
light is a fundamental constant of nature and is observer
independent.
It is interesting to see that Sam Wormsley
does not know that "C" is a "fundamental constant of nature",
and constants are NOT physical properties.
Constants are used to express a physical property
in other units, and the use of a constant introduces
the idea of another physical property.
For example, time intervals are more fundamental
measures of space than Einstein's rulers,
as rulers are nasty, bending sensitive, temperature sensitive,
pressure sensitive, acceleration sensitive, contamination sensitive
beasts.
Time intervals are measured in time units (Seconds, years, etc.),
but the multiplication of a time interval by the CONSTANT "C"
references it to one on Einstein's nasty rulers,
and then it is measured in length units (Meters, feet, miles, etc.)
Light speed is the speed at which events are conveyed from one
point to another, and this speed is a function of the
permittivity and the permeability of the space traversed.
Imagine a cube which had a permittivity x
in one direction and a permittivity 2x in an orthogonal direction.
Observers would measure different velocities of light
traversing the cube diagonally.
Although laymen limit their thinking about light to a vacuum,
one has to consider that the concept of light applies to many
situations
where a vacuum is not involved, situations such as
lens, mirrors, communications systems, LASERs,
the GPS system where "light" path through air is the most important
consideration, etc.
Although it is simpler to think of light as having a constant speed,
if it did, matter and the universe would not exist.
--
Tom Potter
http://no-turtles.com
http://photos.yahoo.com/tdp1001
http://spaces.msn.com/tdp1001
http://tom-potter.blogspot.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Doppler effect on the speed of light |
13 Feb 2006 12:00:34 AM |
|
|
In sci.physics, Spaceman
<Realspace@comcast.not>
wrote
on Sun, 12 Feb 2006 19:33:42 -0500
<O42dnSHWvqF9TnLenZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@comcast.com>:
If light is supposely constant for all,
how could a doppler effect happen at all
to light without a relative speed being the cause?
If you're prepared to accept the Lorentz, I can explain
why a relative velocity of v (moving away) translates into a
wavelength ratio of sqrt(1+v/c) / sqrt(1-v/c).
If not, then all the blathering I can do will be of little use.
A working knowledge of algebra sufficient to read
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
might also be helpful; the first postulate Einstein makes
is that all TWLS are constant. He then proceeds to derive
the Lorentz.
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Doppler effect on the speed of light |
13 Feb 2006 08:45:13 AM |
|
|
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:00i5c3-une.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
| If you're prepared to accept the Lorentz, I can explain
| why a relative velocity of v (moving away) translates into a
| wavelength ratio of sqrt(1+v/c) / sqrt(1-v/c).
I am not prepeared to accept such crap, because
such crap is not occuring in reality.
The data is warped by the "variable" meter
| might also be helpful; the first postulate Einstein makes
| is that all TWLS are constant. He then proceeds to derive
| the Lorentz.
And he is wrong or light could not doppler in a no
medium condition at all.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Doppler effect on the speed of light |
14 Feb 2006 09:00:57 AM |
|
|
In sci.physics, Spaceman
<Realspace@comcast.not>
wrote
on Mon, 13 Feb 2006 09:45:13 -0500
<WPidnaGg3pHvBm3eRVn-iw@comcast.com>:
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:00i5c3-une.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
| If you're prepared to accept the Lorentz, I can explain
| why a relative velocity of v (moving away) translates into a
| wavelength ratio of sqrt(1+v/c) / sqrt(1-v/c).
I am not prepeared to accept such crap, because
such crap is not occuring in reality.
The data is warped by the "variable" meter
A credible defense, to some extent; however, I should note
that all meters -- and meter sticks -- are subject to
electromagnetic distortions. What, after all, is matter?
A bunch of nuclei surrounded by electrons!
In any event, there's at least one specification that
leads to some interesting issues: the LHC specifies,
explicitly, a beam frequency of 1.1245 Khz for a beam
traveling around a 27 km circumference. This translates
into a speed of just under lightspeed -- despite the
claim that the protons in that beam will have 7 TeV each.
| might also be helpful; the first postulate Einstein makes
| is that all TWLS are constant. He then proceeds to derive
| the Lorentz.
And he is wrong or light could not doppler in a no
medium condition at all.
Of course he's wrong; you have said so. Spot the Credibility.
Not that I have much. My attempts at measuring electronic
speed through a cable were repulsed by precision problems.
Ping only gives me milliseconds; I'd need to stretch a cable
loop from here to New York... :-)
(I could ping a server known to be in New York, but the routers
interfere with the signal.)
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Doppler effect on the speed of light |
14 Feb 2006 10:44:31 AM |
|
|
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:5079c3-kjd.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
| A credible defense, to some extent; however, I should note
| that all meters -- and meter sticks -- are subject to
| electromagnetic distortions. What, after all, is matter?
| A bunch of nuclei surrounded by electrons!
|
| In any event, there's at least one specification that
| leads to some interesting issues: the LHC specifies,
| explicitly, a beam frequency of 1.1245 Khz for a beam
| traveling around a 27 km circumference. This translates
| into a speed of just under lightspeed -- despite the
| claim that the protons in that beam will have 7 TeV each.
Greg,
What is the energy of Earth if you only use the 66,000
relative to the sun orbit speed?
What is the energy of Earth if you use the Solarsytems
relative motion.
What is the energy of Earth if you use Galatic rotation speed?
and the sily one.
What is the Energy of Earth when you use it's relative to
the spinning universe speed? (oo no. it may be doing FTL)
:)
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Doppler effect on the speed of light |
15 Feb 2006 07:00:18 AM |
|
|
In sci.physics, Spaceman
<Realspace@comcast.not>
wrote
on Tue, 14 Feb 2006 11:44:31 -0500
<qeGdnRYHreF7lW_enZ2dnUVZ_tGdnZ2d@comcast.com>:
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:5079c3-kjd.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
| A credible defense, to some extent; however, I should note
| that all meters -- and meter sticks -- are subject to
| electromagnetic distortions. What, after all, is matter?
| A bunch of nuclei surrounded by electrons!
|
| In any event, there's at least one specification that
| leads to some interesting issues: the LHC specifies,
| explicitly, a beam frequency of 1.1245 Khz for a beam
| traveling around a 27 km circumference. This translates
| into a speed of just under lightspeed -- despite the
| claim that the protons in that beam will have 7 TeV each.
Greg,
What is the energy of Earth if you only use the 66,000
relative to the sun orbit speed?
What is the energy of Earth if you use the Solarsytems
relative motion.
What is the energy of Earth if you use Galatic rotation speed?
and the sily one.
What is the Energy of Earth when you use it's relative to
the spinning universe speed? (oo no. it may be doing FTL)
:)
Assuming you're referring to the approximately 29.8 km/s orbital
speed of the Earth, the kinetic energy of the Earth is going
to be about
1/2 * (5.976 * 10^24) * (29800^2) = 2.6535 * 10^33 J.
To put this into perspective, that's 42.2 quintillion times
as powerful as Little Boy over Hiroshima on 1945-08-06
(1 quintillion = 10^18)
or the same amount of energy as the Sun would radiate in about
3/4 of an hour over all of its surface (not just the bit that
happens to reach us).
And no, I'm not Greg.
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Doppler effect on the speed of light |
15 Feb 2006 10:23:12 AM |
|
|
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:rgkbc3-ucu.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
| Assuming you're referring to the approximately 29.8 km/s orbital
| speed of the Earth, the kinetic energy of the Earth is going
| to be about
|
| 1/2 * (5.976 * 10^24) * (29800^2) = 2.6535 * 10^33 J.
|
| To put this into perspective, that's 42.2 quintillion times
| as powerful as Little Boy over Hiroshima on 1945-08-06
| (1 quintillion = 10^18)
| or the same amount of energy as the Sun would radiate in about
| 3/4 of an hour over all of its surface (not just the bit that
| happens to reach us).
|
| And no, I'm not Greg.
Oops,
I am very sorry.
and thanks.
Ok,
so,
just for the heck of it.
why does the Earth not kick a meteorite a billion miles
at a zillion miles a second
(yes not really that speed but whatever KE would state)
like the energy says it should
Do protons not have any gravitation to those smaller things it hits?
:)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Neill" |
|
| Title: Re: Doppler effect on the speed of light |
15 Feb 2006 10:44:28 AM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:4ZKdnRIvbrj4yG7enZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@comcast.com...
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:rgkbc3-ucu.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
| Assuming you're referring to the approximately 29.8 km/s orbital
| speed of the Earth, the kinetic energy of the Earth is going
| to be about
|
| 1/2 * (5.976 * 10^24) * (29800^2) = 2.6535 * 10^33 J.
|
| To put this into perspective, that's 42.2 quintillion times
| as powerful as Little Boy over Hiroshima on 1945-08-06
| (1 quintillion = 10^18)
| or the same amount of energy as the Sun would radiate in about
| 3/4 of an hour over all of its surface (not just the bit that
| happens to reach us).
|
| And no, I'm not Greg.
Oops,
I am very sorry.
and thanks.
Ok,
so,
just for the heck of it.
why does the Earth not kick a meteorite a billion miles
at a zillion miles a second
(yes not really that speed but whatever KE would state)
like the energy says it should
Meteorites usually burn up in the atmosphere.
Bodies that make it to the Earth's surface
tend to dump their KE into the planet (lots
of heat, noise, and stuff thrown about) because
the collision is not elastic.
Do protons not have any gravitation to those smaller things it hits?
Anything with mass has gravity, but the mass of elementary
particles is very tiny. The KE of the particles is far,
far greater than their teensy gravitational potential
energy.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Doppler effect on the speed of light |
15 Feb 2006 11:57:46 AM |
|
|
Spaceman wrote:
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:rgkbc3-ucu.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
| Assuming you're referring to the approximately 29.8 km/s orbital
| speed of the Earth, the kinetic energy of the Earth is going
| to be about
|
| 1/2 * (5.976 * 10^24) * (29800^2) = 2.6535 * 10^33 J.
|
| To put this into perspective, that's 42.2 quintillion times
| as powerful as Little Boy over Hiroshima on 1945-08-06
| (1 quintillion = 10^18)
| or the same amount of energy as the Sun would radiate in about
| 3/4 of an hour over all of its surface (not just the bit that
| happens to reach us).
|
| And no, I'm not Greg.
Oops,
I am very sorry.
and thanks.
Ok,
so,
just for the heck of it.
why does the Earth not kick a meteorite a billion miles
at a zillion miles a second
The same reason you can't kick a powdered-sugar doughnut forty yards.
(yes not really that speed but whatever KE would state)
like the energy says it should
Do protons not have any gravitation to those smaller things it hits?
:)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Doppler effect on the speed of light |
15 Feb 2006 12:16:06 PM |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140026266.668314.220110@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| The same reason you can't kick a powdered-sugar doughnut forty yards.
So protons are like powdered donuts without the hole then.
LOL
:)
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Doppler effect on the speed of light |
15 Feb 2006 01:19:15 PM |
|
|
Spaceman wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140026266.668314.220110@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| The same reason you can't kick a powdered-sugar doughnut forty yards.
So protons are like powdered donuts without the hole then.
LOL
:)
In some cases, yes. But you were talking about meteors, not protons.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Doppler effect on the speed of light |
15 Feb 2006 01:34:20 PM |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140031155.529174.139480@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|
| Spaceman wrote:
| > "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:1140026266.668314.220110@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| > | The same reason you can't kick a powdered-sugar doughnut forty yards.
| >
| >
| > So protons are like powdered donuts without the hole then.
| > LOL
| > :)
|
| In some cases, yes. But you were talking about meteors, not protons.
What are the protons hitting and what size difference is there?
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Doppler effect on the speed of light |
15 Feb 2006 05:17:54 PM |
|
|
Spaceman wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140031155.529174.139480@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|
| Spaceman wrote:
| > "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:1140026266.668314.220110@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| > | The same reason you can't kick a powdered-sugar doughnut forty yards.
| >
| >
| > So protons are like powdered donuts without the hole then.
| > LOL
| > :)
|
| In some cases, yes. But you were talking about meteors, not protons.
What are the protons hitting and what size difference is there?
You mean, as an example of "some cases"?
This happens colliding protons on protons, for example. But it also
happens colliding protons on lead bricks.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Doppler effect on the speed of light |
15 Feb 2006 05:31:55 PM |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140045474.527533.65880@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
| You mean, as an example of "some cases"?
| This happens colliding protons on protons, for example. But it also
| happens colliding protons on lead bricks.
I am talking about trying to get FTL speeds
from Protons hitting something, how small would that
"something" have to be to get such a faster hit?
mass vs mass.
:)
If the proton was doing 0.9c what mass would have to
be hit by the proton for it to "newtonianly" hit c or even pass c
by just the basic KE type thinking?
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Doppler effect on the speed of light |
16 Feb 2006 09:01:34 AM |
|
|
Spaceman wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140045474.527533.65880@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
| You mean, as an example of "some cases"?
| This happens colliding protons on protons, for example. But it also
| happens colliding protons on lead bricks.
I am talking about trying to get FTL speeds
from Protons hitting something, how small would that
"something" have to be to get such a faster hit?
mass vs mass.
:)
If the proton was doing 0.9c what mass would have to
be hit by the proton for it to "newtonianly" hit c or even pass c
by just the basic KE type thinking?
In an elastic collision, the relative velocity between the two
colliding objects stays the same, "newtonianly". If one of the
colliding objects is big enough where it doesn't slow down much, this
can have dramatic effects, "newtonianly". For example, a baseball
pitched at 90 mph comes at a bat swung at 60 mph, for a relative
velocity of 150 mph. After the impact, the bat doesn't slow down much,
because it is attached to the mass of the batter's body, and so it
continues on at, say, 58 mph. This means that the baseball heads toward
the outfield at 208 mph. This is why a baseball can be hit into the
bleachers even if it can't be thrown into the bleachers, even though
the bat is going slower than the pitcher's arm.
I'll let you figure out how this applies to a proton and what it would
have to hit to go faster than c, "newtonianly". It turns out that it's
not a very demanding requirement. And so the fact that we can NOT get
it going faster than c "newtonianly" is significant.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Doppler effect on the speed of light |
16 Feb 2006 09:56:50 AM |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140098737.453678.317390@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
|
| Spaceman wrote:
| > "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:1140045474.527533.65880@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
| > | You mean, as an example of "some cases"?
| > | This happens colliding protons on protons, for example. But it also
| > | happens colliding protons on lead bricks.
| >
| > I am talking about trying to get FTL speeds
| > from Protons hitting something, how small would that
| > "something" have to be to get such a faster hit?
| > mass vs mass.
| > :)
| >
| > If the proton was doing 0.9c what mass would have to
| > be hit by the proton for it to "newtonianly" hit c or even pass c
| > by just the basic KE type thinking?
|
| In an elastic collision, the relative velocity between the two
| colliding objects stays the same, "newtonianly". If one of the
| colliding objects is big enough where it doesn't slow down much, this
| can have dramatic effects, "newtonianly". For example, a baseball
| pitched at 90 mph comes at a bat swung at 60 mph, for a relative
| velocity of 150 mph. After the impact, the bat doesn't slow down much,
| because it is attached to the mass of the batter's body, and so it
| continues on at, say, 58 mph. This means that the baseball heads toward
| the outfield at 208 mph. This is why a baseball can be hit into the
| bleachers even if it can't be thrown into the bleachers, even though
| the bat is going slower than the pitcher's arm.
|
| I'll let you figure out how this applies to a proton and what it would
| have to hit to go faster than c, "newtonianly". It turns out that it's
| not a very demanding requirement. And so the fact that we can NOT get
| it going faster than c "newtonianly" is significant.
All very nice stuff, but no answer of course.
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Doppler effect on the speed of light |
16 Feb 2006 10:35:00 AM |
|
|
Spaceman wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140098737.453678.317390@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
|
| Spaceman wrote:
| > "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:1140045474.527533.65880@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
| > | You mean, as an example of "some cases"?
| > | This happens colliding protons on protons, for example. But it also
| > | happens colliding protons on lead bricks.
| >
| > I am talking about trying to get FTL speeds
| > from Protons hitting something, how small would that
| > "something" have to be to get such a faster hit?
| > mass vs mass.
| > :)
| >
| > If the proton was doing 0.9c what mass would have to
| > be hit by the proton for it to "newtonianly" hit c or even pass c
| > by just the basic KE type thinking?
|
| In an elastic collision, the relative velocity between the two
| colliding objects stays the same, "newtonianly". If one of the
| colliding objects is big enough where it doesn't slow down much, this
| can have dramatic effects, "newtonianly". For example, a baseball
| pitched at 90 mph comes at a bat swung at 60 mph, for a relative
| velocity of 150 mph. After the impact, the bat doesn't slow down much,
| because it is attached to the mass of the batter's body, and so it
| continues on at, say, 58 mph. This means that the baseball heads toward
| the outfield at 208 mph. This is why a baseball can be hit into the
| bleachers even if it can't be thrown into the bleachers, even though
| the bat is going slower than the pitcher's arm.
|
| I'll let you figure out how this applies to a proton and what it would
| have to hit to go faster than c, "newtonianly". It turns out that it's
| not a very demanding requirement. And so the fact that we can NOT get
| it going faster than c "newtonianly" is significant.
All very nice stuff, but no answer of course.
As I said in another area, I see no reason to spoonfeed you. If you
want a fish, I'll bait the hook and hand you the rod. You catch the
fish.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Doppler effect on the speed of light |
16 Feb 2006 10:46:04 AM |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140107700.804088.221400@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|
| Spaceman wrote:
| > "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:1140098737.453678.317390@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
| > |
| > | Spaceman wrote:
| > | > "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
| > | > news:1140045474.527533.65880@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
| > | > | You mean, as an example of "some cases"?
| > | > | This happens colliding protons on protons, for example. But it
also
| > | > | happens colliding protons on lead bricks.
| > | >
| > | > I am talking about trying to get FTL speeds
| > | > from Protons hitting something, how small would that
| > | > "something" have to be to get such a faster hit?
| > | > mass vs mass.
| > | > :)
| > | >
| > | > If the proton was doing 0.9c what mass would have to
| > | > be hit by the proton for it to "newtonianly" hit c or even pass c
| > | > by just the basic KE type thinking?
| > |
| > | In an elastic collision, the relative velocity between the two
| > | colliding objects stays the same, "newtonianly". If one of the
| > | colliding objects is big enough where it doesn't slow down much, this
| > | can have dramatic effects, "newtonianly". For example, a baseball
| > | pitched at 90 mph comes at a bat swung at 60 mph, for a relative
| > | velocity of 150 mph. After the impact, the bat doesn't slow down much,
| > | because it is attached to the mass of the batter's body, and so it
| > | continues on at, say, 58 mph. This means that the baseball heads
toward
| > | the outfield at 208 mph. This is why a baseball can be hit into the
| > | bleachers even if it can't be thrown into the bleachers, even though
| > | the bat is going slower than the pitcher's arm.
| > |
| > | I'll let you figure out how this applies to a proton and what it would
| > | have to hit to go faster than c, "newtonianly". It turns out that it's
| > | not a very demanding requirement. And so the fact that we can NOT get
| > | it going faster than c "newtonianly" is significant.
| >
| > All very nice stuff, but no answer of course.
|
| As I said in another area, I see no reason to spoonfeed you. If you
| want a fish, I'll bait the hook and hand you the rod. You catch the
| fish.
Handing a man a fishing pole and yet not knowing how to fish
yourself is a sad way to feed people.
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Doppler effect on the speed of light |
16 Feb 2006 01:04:53 PM |
|
|
Spaceman wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140107700.804088.221400@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|
| Spaceman wrote:
| > "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:1140098737.453678.317390@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
| > |
| > | Spaceman wrote:
| > | > "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
| > | > news:1140045474.527533.65880@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
| > | > | You mean, as an example of "some cases"?
| > | > | This happens colliding protons on protons, for example. But it
also
| > | > | happens colliding protons on lead bricks.
| > | >
| > | > I am talking about trying to get FTL speeds
| > | > from Protons hitting something, how small would that
| > | > "something" have to be to get such a faster hit?
| > | > mass vs mass.
| > | > :)
| > | >
| > | > If the proton was doing 0.9c what mass would have to
| > | > be hit by the proton for it to "newtonianly" hit c or even pass c
| > | > by just the basic KE type thinking?
| > |
| > | In an elastic collision, the relative velocity between the two
| > | colliding objects stays the same, "newtonianly". If one of the
| > | colliding objects is big enough where it doesn't slow down much, this
| > | can have dramatic effects, "newtonianly". For example, a baseball
| > | pitched at 90 mph comes at a bat swung at 60 mph, for a relative
| > | velocity of 150 mph. After the impact, the bat doesn't slow down much,
| > | because it is attached to the mass of the batter's body, and so it
| > | continues on at, say, 58 mph. This means that the baseball heads
toward
| > | the outfield at 208 mph. This is why a baseball can be hit into the
| > | bleachers even if it can't be thrown into the bleachers, even though
| > | the bat is going slower than the pitcher's arm.
| > |
| > | I'll let you figure out how this applies to a proton and what it would
| > | have to hit to go faster than c, "newtonianly". It turns out that it's
| > | not a very demanding requirement. And so the fact that we can NOT get
| > | it going faster than c "newtonianly" is significant.
| >
| > All very nice stuff, but no answer of course.
|
| As I said in another area, I see no reason to spoonfeed you. If you
| want a fish, I'll bait the hook and hand you the rod. You catch the
| fish.
Handing a man a fishing pole and yet not knowing how to fish
yourself is a sad way to feed people.
When someone hands you a fishing pole complete with bait, it's not wise
to say, "I asked you for a fish. You must not know how to fish!"
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Doppler effect on the speed of light |
16 Feb 2006 01:25:04 PM |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140116693.834124.182520@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|
| Spaceman wrote:
| > "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:1140107700.804088.221400@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| > |
| > | Spaceman wrote:
| > | > "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
| > | > news:1140098737.453678.317390@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
| > | > |
| > | > | Spaceman wrote:
| > | > | > "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
| > | > | > news:1140045474.527533.65880@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
| > | > | > | You mean, as an example of "some cases"?
| > | > | > | This happens colliding protons on protons, for example. But it
| > also
| > | > | > | happens colliding protons on lead bricks.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > I am talking about trying to get FTL speeds
| > | > | > from Protons hitting something, how small would that
| > | > | > "something" have to be to get such a faster hit?
| > | > | > mass vs mass.
| > | > | > :)
| > | > | >
| > | > | > If the proton was doing 0.9c what mass would have to
| > | > | > be hit by the proton for it to "newtonianly" hit c or even pass
c
| > | > | > by just the basic KE type thinking?
| > | > |
| > | > | In an elastic collision, the relative velocity between the two
| > | > | colliding objects stays the same, "newtonianly". If one of the
| > | > | colliding objects is big enough where it doesn't slow down much,
this
| > | > | can have dramatic effects, "newtonianly". For example, a baseball
| > | > | pitched at 90 mph comes at a bat swung at 60 mph, for a relative
| > | > | velocity of 150 mph. After the impact, the bat doesn't slow down
much,
| > | > | because it is attached to the mass of the batter's body, and so it
| > | > | continues on at, say, 58 mph. This means that the baseball heads
| > toward
| > | > | the outfield at 208 mph. This is why a baseball can be hit into
the
| > | > | bleachers even if it can't be thrown into the bleachers, even
though
| > | > | the bat is going slower than the pitcher's arm.
| > | > |
| > | > | I'll let you figure out how this applies to a proton and what it
would
| > | > | have to hit to go faster than c, "newtonianly". It turns out that
it's
| > | > | not a very demanding requirement. And so the fact that we can NOT
get
| > | > | it going faster than c "newtonianly" is significant.
| > | >
| > | > All very nice stuff, but no answer of course.
| > |
| > | As I said in another area, I see no reason to spoonfeed you. If you
| > | want a fish, I'll bait the hook and hand you the rod. You catch the
| > | fish.
| >
| > Handing a man a fishing pole and yet not knowing how to fish
| > yourself is a sad way to feed people.
|
| When someone hands you a fishing pole complete with bait, it's not wise
| to say, "I asked you for a fish. You must not know how to fish!"
When someone asks for a fish and someone that does not know how to
fish hands you the pole, you say fine, move on moron, I will
get the fish myself and you will never realize how I got it.
PD, you will never learn how to fish it seems.
You keep handing the pole off to others to learn when you have
not learned yourself yet.
I try tro teach you how to fish, but you say the fish I catch
are not fish..
You truly have a problem.
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Doppler effect on the speed of light |
16 Feb 2006 03:25:20 PM |
|
|
Spaceman wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140116693.834124.182520@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|
| Spaceman wrote:
| > "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:1140107700.804088.221400@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| > |
| > | Spaceman wrote:
| > | > "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
| > | > news:1140098737.453678.317390@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
| > | > |
| > | > | Spaceman wrote:
| > | > | > "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
| > | > | > news:1140045474.527533.65880@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
| > | > | > | You mean, as an example of "some cases"?
| > | > | > | This happens colliding protons on protons, for example. But it
| > also
| > | > | > | happens colliding protons on lead bricks.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > I am talking about trying to get FTL speeds
| > | > | > from Protons hitting something, how small would that
| > | > | > "something" have to be to get such a faster hit?
| > | > | > mass vs mass.
| > | > | > :)
| > | > | >
| > | > | > If the proton was doing 0.9c what mass would have to
| > | > | > be hit by the proton for it to "newtonianly" hit c or even pass
c
| > | > | > by just the basic KE type thinking?
| > | > |
| > | > | In an elastic collision, the relative velocity between the two
| > | > | colliding objects stays the same, "newtonianly". If one of the
| > | > | colliding objects is big enough where it doesn't slow down much,
this
| > | > | can have dramatic effects, "newtonianly". For example, a baseball
| > | > | pitched at 90 mph comes at a bat swung at 60 mph, for a relative
| > | > | velocity of 150 mph. After the impact, the bat doesn't slow down
much,
| > | > | because it is attached to the mass of the batter's body, and so it
| > | > | continues on at, say, 58 mph. This means that the baseball heads
| > toward
| > | > | the outfield at 208 mph. This is why a baseball can be hit into
the
| > | > | bleachers even if it can't be thrown into the bleachers, even
though
| > | > | the bat is going slower than the pitcher's arm.
| > | > |
| > | > | I'll let you figure out how this applies to a proton and what it
would
| > | > | have to hit to go faster than c, "newtonianly". It turns out that
it's
| > | > | not a very demanding requirement. And so the fact that we can NOT
get
| > | > | it going faster than c "newtonianly" is significant.
| > | >
| > | > All very nice stuff, but no answer of course.
| > |
| > | As I said in another area, I see no reason to spoonfeed you. If you
| > | want a fish, I'll bait the hook and hand you the rod. You catch the
| > | fish.
| >
| > Handing a man a fishing pole and yet not knowing how to fish
| > yourself is a sad way to feed people.
|
| When someone hands you a fishing pole complete with bait, it's not wise
| to say, "I asked you for a fish. You must not know how to fish!"
When someone asks for a fish and someone that does not know how to
fish hands you the pole, you say fine, move on moron, I will
get the fish myself and you will never realize how I got it.
PD, you will never learn how to fish it seems.
You keep handing the pole off to others to learn when you have
not learned yourself yet.
I try tro teach you how to fish, but you say the fish I catch
are not fish..
That's exactly right. The "fish" you bring up has laces and a heel and
is made of black rubber, and you still claim you have a fish. And I
have no idea how you caught it, and I have no idea where you got the
idea it is a fish, and I don't care.
You truly have a problem.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Doppler effect on the speed of light |
16 Feb 2006 03:30:50 PM |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140125120.606817.85730@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
That's exactly right. The "fish" you bring up has laces and a heel and
is made of black rubber, and you still claim you have a fish. And I
have no idea how you caught it, and I have no idea where you got the
idea it is a fish, and I don't care.
Nope, it is a fish, and you just need some new glasses
or maybe a de-brainwashing.
It seems you were taught that fish are not fish..
LOL
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Doppler effect on the speed of light |
12 Feb 2006 07:32:38 PM |
|
|
Spaceman wrote:
If light is supposely constant for all,
how could a doppler effect happen at all
to light without a relative speed being the cause?
Google to the rescue, spaceshit.
www.google.com "relativistic doppler shift"
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/reldop2.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Doppler effect on the speed of light |
12 Feb 2006 07:38:49 PM |
|
|
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139794358.080151.11090@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|
| Spaceman wrote:
| > If light is supposely constant for all,
| > how could a doppler effect happen at all
| > to light without a relative speed being the cause?
|
| Google to the rescue, spaceshit.
Yup,
Google should just replace the group
and every question asked here, should be answered
just google it.
LOL
.
|
|
|
| User: "brad" |
|
| Title: Re: Doppler effect on the speed of light |
12 Feb 2006 08:44:27 PM |
|
|
doppler and light speed: i don't understand why transmission rate and
wavelength should be related. following spacemans reasoning all em
should be the same color,no?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|

|
Related Articles |
|
|