Science > Physics > Doppler shift is evidence for varying speed of light.
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
03 Aug 2005 10:09:12 AM |
| Object: |
Doppler shift is evidence for varying speed of light. |
Doppler shift is evidence for varying speed of light.
Why?
Because the wave length of a specific light source remains constant in
all frames and thus according to the equation:
speed of light = Lambda*frequency
Therefore, If frequency is shifted then the speed of light is varied.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
| User: "bz" |
|
| Title: Re: Doppler shift is evidence for varying speed of light. |
16 Aug 2005 11:40:19 AM |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in news:1124206043.134390.197410
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
No, it is NOT, and that is a spectacular demonstration of your lack of
understanding of SR. Please distinguish between what you think SR says
from what you think IRT says. SR makes no claims whatsover about
absolute motion; IRT does. SR says absolute motion is a notion without
meaning. If you say that the above is an attempt to describe the
effects of absolute motion of the observer, that is NOT an SR
description or an SR attempt at a description in any way, shape, or
form.
You have to understand that Ken's definition of 'absolute motion' is
different from SR's. Until you understand that, nothing will make any
sense.
He sets it forth in
http://my.erinet.com/~kenseto/conceptofmotion.htm
[which makes no sense to me.]
The distinguishing feature seems to be that Seto's Absolute Motion is
always wrt the light source, except when it is in a gravity field, in which
case it is wrt vertical. At least that is what I think he has said,
gathered from reading many of his comments on absolute motion.
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Doppler shift is evidence for varying speed of light. |
17 Aug 2005 09:07:01 AM |
|
|
"bz" <bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns96B476FE4AC1CWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139...
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in news:1124206043.134390.197410
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
No, it is NOT, and that is a spectacular demonstration of your lack of
understanding of SR. Please distinguish between what you think SR says
from what you think IRT says. SR makes no claims whatsover about
absolute motion; IRT does. SR says absolute motion is a notion without
meaning. If you say that the above is an attempt to describe the
effects of absolute motion of the observer, that is NOT an SR
description or an SR attempt at a description in any way, shape, or
form.
You have to understand that Ken's definition of 'absolute motion' is
different from SR's. Until you understand that, nothing will make any
sense.
He sets it forth in
http://my.erinet.com/~kenseto/conceptofmotion.htm
[which makes no sense to me.]
The distinguishing feature seems to be that Seto's Absolute Motion is
always wrt the light source,
NO....ken seto's absolute motion is that motion of an object wrt the light
rays in a stationary ether.
except when it is in a gravity field, in which
case it is wrt vertical. At least that is what I think he has said,
gathered from reading many of his comments on absolute motion.
You make this up. I didn't say that. I said that on earth the direction of
absolute motion is in the vertical direction and this is supported by
experiments as follows.
1. The null result of the MMX is due to that the apparaus is moving
vertically while the light rays are moving horizontally. If the MMX
apparatus is oriented vertically then non-null result will be detected.
2. The Pound-Rebka experiments show that the direction of absolute motion is
in the vertical direction. They detected frequency shift in the vertical
direction.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "bz" |
|
| Title: Re: Doppler shift is evidence for varying speed of light. |
17 Aug 2005 09:46:30 AM |
|
|
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in
news:9wHMe.96647$zY4.4384@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com:
"bz" <bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns96B476FE4AC1CWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139...
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in news:1124206043.134390.197410
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
No, it is NOT, and that is a spectacular demonstration of your lack
of understanding of SR. Please distinguish between what you think SR
says from what you think IRT says. SR makes no claims whatsover about
absolute motion; IRT does. SR says absolute motion is a notion
without meaning. If you say that the above is an attempt to describe
the effects of absolute motion of the observer, that is NOT an SR
description or an SR attempt at a description in any way, shape, or
form.
You have to understand that Ken's definition of 'absolute motion' is
different from SR's. Until you understand that, nothing will make any
sense.
He sets it forth in
http://my.erinet.com/~kenseto/conceptofmotion.htm
[which makes no sense to me.]
The distinguishing feature seems to be that Seto's Absolute Motion is
always wrt the light source,
NO....ken seto's absolute motion is that motion of an object wrt the
light rays in a stationary ether.
And what is the ether 'stationary' with respect to?
The earth's center
The earth's surface
The sun's center
The sun's surface
The solar system
The milkyway galaxy
The local group of galaxies
The CMBR
something else: _____________[fill in the blank].
except when it is in a gravity field, in which
case it is wrt vertical. At least that is what I think he has said,
gathered from reading many of his comments on absolute motion.
You make this up.
I am trying to understand what you are saying.
I didn't say that. I said that on earth the direction
of absolute motion is in the vertical direction and this is supported by
experiments as follows.
1. The null result of the MMX is due to that the apparaus is moving
vertically while the light rays are moving horizontally. If the MMX
apparatus is oriented vertically then non-null result will be detected.
2. The Pound-Rebka experiments show that the direction of absolute
motion is in the vertical direction. They detected frequency shift in
the vertical direction.
How can absolute motion in
Baton Rouge, LA Latitude: 30.45056 Longitude: -91.15444
and Saratoga Wyoming Latitude: 41.455 Longitude: -106.80583
BOTH be vertical, at the same time? 'Vertical' is almost 10 spherical
degrees (9.555, if I did things right) different for those two locations.
Pick somewhere on the equator in Equador and someplace on the equator in
Africa. If you pick the right places, now 'vertical' differs by 90 degrees.
How can 'absolute motion' be taking place in directions that are 90 degrees
different from each other?
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Doppler shift is evidence for varying speed of light. |
19 Aug 2005 10:01:26 AM |
|
|
"bz" <bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns96B563B2F6BD7WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139...
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in
news:9wHMe.96647$zY4.4384@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com:
"bz" <bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns96B476FE4AC1CWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139...
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in news:1124206043.134390.197410
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
No, it is NOT, and that is a spectacular demonstration of your lack
of understanding of SR. Please distinguish between what you think SR
says from what you think IRT says. SR makes no claims whatsover about
absolute motion; IRT does. SR says absolute motion is a notion
without meaning. If you say that the above is an attempt to describe
the effects of absolute motion of the observer, that is NOT an SR
description or an SR attempt at a description in any way, shape, or
form.
You have to understand that Ken's definition of 'absolute motion' is
different from SR's. Until you understand that, nothing will make any
sense.
He sets it forth in
http://my.erinet.com/~kenseto/conceptofmotion.htm
[which makes no sense to me.]
The distinguishing feature seems to be that Seto's Absolute Motion is
always wrt the light source,
NO....ken seto's absolute motion is that motion of an object wrt the
light rays in a stationary ether.
And what is the ether 'stationary' with respect to?
Sigh....the ether is an absolute rest frame it is not wrt anything. Objects
moving in the ether is absolute motion. Light is being transmitted by the
stationary ether at a constant speed. Therefore motion of objects wrt to
light is also a form of absolute motion.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "bz" |
|
| Title: Re: Doppler shift is evidence for varying speed of light. |
19 Aug 2005 10:48:22 AM |
|
|
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in
news:avmNe.221$ja7.30@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com:
"bz" <bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns96B563B2F6BD7WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139...
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in
news:9wHMe.96647$zY4.4384@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com:
"bz" <bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns96B476FE4AC1CWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139...
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1124206043.134390.197410 @g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
No, it is NOT, and that is a spectacular demonstration of your
lack of understanding of SR. Please distinguish between what you
think SR says from what you think IRT says. SR makes no claims
whatsover about absolute motion; IRT does. SR says absolute motion
is a notion without meaning. If you say that the above is an
attempt to describe the effects of absolute motion of the
observer, that is NOT an SR description or an SR attempt at a
description in any way, shape, or form.
You have to understand that Ken's definition of 'absolute motion' is
different from SR's. Until you understand that, nothing will make
any sense.
He sets it forth in
http://my.erinet.com/~kenseto/conceptofmotion.htm
[which makes no sense to me.]
The distinguishing feature seems to be that Seto's Absolute Motion
is always wrt the light source,
NO....ken seto's absolute motion is that motion of an object wrt the
light rays in a stationary ether.
And what is the ether 'stationary' with respect to?
Sigh....the ether is an absolute rest frame it is not wrt anything.
Objects moving in the ether is absolute motion. Light is being
transmitted by the stationary ether at a constant speed. Therefore
motion of objects wrt to light is also a form of absolute motion.
Absolute implies there is ONLY one correct ABSOLUTE motion measurement of
any object.
This implies there must be a particular zero ABSOLUTE velocity.
For rotary motion, it turns out that there is an ABSOLUTE zero for rotary
motion. You take put a space ship into free fall and adjust your rotations
so that all objects in the ship are in free fall, and you know the ship is
at absolute zero wrt rotations. You start the ship rotating about any axis
and you will find that objects 'stick to' the surfaces that are in rotary
motion about the ships center of mass. The same thing happens on earth
with merry-go-rounds. We find that 'absolute zero rotary motion'
corresponds with 'the fixed stars' NOT being in rotation. Sagnac detects
deviation from absolute zero rotary motion.
For LINEAR motion, we have found NO absolute zero. MMX looked for such.
Didn't find it.
I keep asking you which way things have to move and how fast [wrt my
current location] in order to be ABSOLUTELY STATIONARY.
It can NOT be vertically because my vertical and your vertical are
different directions and if I measure a ray of light moving vertically at
your location wrt your FoR, it is NOT moving vertically WRT my FoR. That
makes it a RELATIVE MOTION, not an absolute motion. There can only be ONE
correct absolute motion for anything.
If you say ABSOLUTE is in the direction that the beam of light is going,
then MMX should have detected motion.
In any case, your ABSOLUTE seems to be a missuse of the word 'absolute'.
Unless you can tell us which direction and what velocity we must move
something in order for it to have ZERO absolute motion, and we all agree
that is the proper direction and velocity, then it can NOT be absolute.
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Doppler shift is evidence for varying speed of light. |
16 Aug 2005 01:01:45 PM |
|
|
bz wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in news:1124206043.134390.197410
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
No, it is NOT, and that is a spectacular demonstration of your lack of
understanding of SR. Please distinguish between what you think SR says
from what you think IRT says. SR makes no claims whatsover about
absolute motion; IRT does. SR says absolute motion is a notion without
meaning. If you say that the above is an attempt to describe the
effects of absolute motion of the observer, that is NOT an SR
description or an SR attempt at a description in any way, shape, or
form.
You have to understand that Ken's definition of 'absolute motion' is
different from SR's. Until you understand that, nothing will make any
sense.
He sets it forth in
http://my.erinet.com/~kenseto/conceptofmotion.htm
[which makes no sense to me.]
Yeah, I get that Ken's definition is different than SR. My complaint
with Ken is that I told him something about what SR says, and then he
said that this is SR's attempt to describe the absolute motion of
something or other, to which I felt compelled to remind him that SR
says NOTHING about absolute inertial motion of anything. I don't think
*he* gets that. Nor do I think he gets the PoR, as evidenced by his
successive waffling that a wavelength from a single sodium source must
be the same as measured by two different observers A & B in different
inertial frames, and that a wavelength from a single sodium source must
be different as measured by two different observers A & B in different
inertial frames.
The distinguishing feature seems to be that Seto's Absolute Motion is
always wrt the light source, except when it is in a gravity field, in which
case it is wrt vertical. At least that is what I think he has said,
gathered from reading many of his comments on absolute motion.
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Doppler shift is evidence for varying speed of light. |
17 Aug 2005 09:32:52 AM |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1124214895.372284.180910@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
bz wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in news:1124206043.134390.197410
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
No, it is NOT, and that is a spectacular demonstration of your lack of
understanding of SR. Please distinguish between what you think SR says
from what you think IRT says. SR makes no claims whatsover about
absolute motion; IRT does. SR says absolute motion is a notion without
meaning. If you say that the above is an attempt to describe the
effects of absolute motion of the observer, that is NOT an SR
description or an SR attempt at a description in any way, shape, or
form.
You have to understand that Ken's definition of 'absolute motion' is
different from SR's. Until you understand that, nothing will make any
sense.
He sets it forth in
http://my.erinet.com/~kenseto/conceptofmotion.htm
[which makes no sense to me.]
Yeah, I get that Ken's definition is different than SR. My complaint
with Ken is that I told him something about what SR says, and then he
said that this is SR's attempt to describe the absolute motion of
something or other, to which I felt compelled to remind him that SR
says NOTHING about absolute inertial motion of anything. I don't think
*he* gets that. Nor do I think he gets the PoR, as evidenced by his
successive waffling that a wavelength from a single sodium source must
be the same as measured by two different observers A & B in different
inertial frames, and that a wavelength from a single sodium source must
be different as measured by two different observers A & B in different
inertial frames.
Sigh....how many times do I have to tell you that A and B measure their own
sodium light to have the same freqency (this is PoR). But A measures B's
sodium light to have a different frequency?
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Doppler shift is evidence for varying speed of light. |
17 Aug 2005 12:07:20 PM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1124214895.372284.180910@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
bz wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in news:1124206043.134390.197410
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
No, it is NOT, and that is a spectacular demonstration of your lack of
understanding of SR. Please distinguish between what you think SR says
from what you think IRT says. SR makes no claims whatsover about
absolute motion; IRT does. SR says absolute motion is a notion without
meaning. If you say that the above is an attempt to describe the
effects of absolute motion of the observer, that is NOT an SR
description or an SR attempt at a description in any way, shape, or
form.
You have to understand that Ken's definition of 'absolute motion' is
different from SR's. Until you understand that, nothing will make any
sense.
He sets it forth in
http://my.erinet.com/~kenseto/conceptofmotion.htm
[which makes no sense to me.]
Yeah, I get that Ken's definition is different than SR. My complaint
with Ken is that I told him something about what SR says, and then he
said that this is SR's attempt to describe the absolute motion of
something or other, to which I felt compelled to remind him that SR
says NOTHING about absolute inertial motion of anything. I don't think
*he* gets that. Nor do I think he gets the PoR, as evidenced by his
successive waffling that a wavelength from a single sodium source must
be the same as measured by two different observers A & B in different
inertial frames, and that a wavelength from a single sodium source must
be different as measured by two different observers A & B in different
inertial frames.
Sigh....how many times do I have to tell you that A and B measure their own
sodium light to have the same freqency (this is PoR). But A measures B's
sodium light to have a different frequency?
And the same thing goes for wavelength (which you agreed to).
But if they compare the value of c that they *each* get by using their
own value's of wavelength and frequency of B's light --(Not A's light.
A's measured wavelength and frequency of B's light. B's measured
wavelength of B's light.) -- then they find they get the same value for
c.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Doppler shift is evidence for varying speed of light. |
19 Aug 2005 09:56:41 AM |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1124298440.862449.149710@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1124214895.372284.180910@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
bz wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1124206043.134390.197410
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
No, it is NOT, and that is a spectacular demonstration of your
lack of
understanding of SR. Please distinguish between what you think SR
says
from what you think IRT says. SR makes no claims whatsover about
absolute motion; IRT does. SR says absolute motion is a notion
without
meaning. If you say that the above is an attempt to describe the
effects of absolute motion of the observer, that is NOT an SR
description or an SR attempt at a description in any way, shape,
or
form.
You have to understand that Ken's definition of 'absolute motion' is
different from SR's. Until you understand that, nothing will make
any
sense.
He sets it forth in
http://my.erinet.com/~kenseto/conceptofmotion.htm
[which makes no sense to me.]
Yeah, I get that Ken's definition is different than SR. My complaint
with Ken is that I told him something about what SR says, and then he
said that this is SR's attempt to describe the absolute motion of
something or other, to which I felt compelled to remind him that SR
says NOTHING about absolute inertial motion of anything. I don't think
*he* gets that. Nor do I think he gets the PoR, as evidenced by his
successive waffling that a wavelength from a single sodium source must
be the same as measured by two different observers A & B in different
inertial frames, and that a wavelength from a single sodium source
must
be different as measured by two different observers A & B in different
inertial frames.
Sigh....how many times do I have to tell you that A and B measure their
own
sodium light to have the same freqency (this is PoR). But A measures B's
sodium light to have a different frequency?
And the same thing goes for wavelength (which you agreed to).
No I didn't agree to that at all. In my theory wavelength is a universal
constant.
But if they compare the value of c that they *each* get by using their
own value's of wavelength and frequency of B's light --(Not A's light.
A's measured wavelength and frequency of B's light. B's measured
wavelength of B's light.) -- then they find they get the same value for
c.
A's measurement of B's frequency multiply that by the universal constant
wavelength gives the varying speed of B's incoming light.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Doppler shift is evidence for varying speed of light. |
16 Aug 2005 11:54:00 AM |
|
|
bz wrote:
You have to understand that Ken's definition of 'absolute motion' is
different from SR's. Until you understand that, nothing will make any
sense.
Perhaps you could clarify those two definitions for us.
.
|
|
|
| User: "bz" |
|
| Title: Re: Doppler shift is evidence for varying speed of light. |
16 Aug 2005 12:34:05 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in news:ISoMe.256930$_o.43342
@attbi_s71:
bz wrote:
You have to understand that Ken's definition of 'absolute motion' is
different from SR's. Until you understand that, nothing will make any
sense.
Perhaps you could clarify those two definitions for us.
Check my understanding please:
SR doesn't deal with absolute motion, as far as I know. :)
Only relative motion between inertial frames of reference.
All items at rest with respect to one another constitute a Frame of
Reference. SR excludes frames that are not either at rest or undergoing
uniform linear motion. His 1905 paper does mention some exemptions to these
restrictions [such as a slowly accelerated electron traveling in a circular
path]
The ether theory that SR superceeded had an absolute frame of reference [the
ether] and any motion when expressed with respect to that stationary frame
would be absolute motion.
Seto's absolute motion seems to always be measured wrt a light source or in
the vertical direction.
Of course 'conventional absolute motion' could NOT always be vertical unless
the earth was flat and infinite in extent.
How badly did I mess up?
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Doppler shift is evidence for varying speed of light. |
16 Aug 2005 01:47:48 PM |
|
|
"bz" <bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns96B4801BADE6BWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139...
Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in news:ISoMe.256930$_o.43342
@attbi_s71:
bz wrote:
You have to understand that Ken's definition of 'absolute motion' is
different from SR's. Until you understand that, nothing will make any
sense.
Perhaps you could clarify those two definitions for us.
Check my understanding please:
SR doesn't deal with absolute motion, as far as I know. :)
Only relative motion between inertial frames of reference.
SR deals with absolute motion because it is based on relative motion.
Relative motion between two objects A and B is the vector difference of the
vector component of A's absolute motion and the vector component of B's
absolute motion along the line joining A and B.
All items at rest with respect to one another constitute a Frame of
Reference. SR excludes frames that are not either at rest or undergoing
uniform linear motion.
There is no rest frame even though SR assume that there is such a frame. An
observer in SR assumes that he is in a state of rest and that's why he
asserts that clocks moving wrt him are running slow and rod moving wrt him
are contracted. BTW this is the reason why SR is incomplete.
The ether theory that SR superceeded had an absolute frame of reference
[the
ether] and any motion when expressed with respect to that stationary frame
would be absolute motion.
Right.
Seto's absolute motion seems to always be measured wrt a light source or
in
the vertical direction.
Wrong. IRT says: Absolute motion is that motion of an object wrt the light
waves in the ether. On earth the direction of absolute motion appears to be
in the vertical direction wrt the horizontal light rays. This interpretation
is supported by the MMX null result. Also this interpretation is supported
by the observed frequency shift in the vertical direction in the Pound-Rebka
experiments
Of course 'conventional absolute motion' could NOT always be vertical
unless
the earth was flat and infinite in extent.
It appears that you have a comprehension problem.
How badly did I mess up?
Very badly.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "bz" |
|
| Title: Re: Doppler shift is evidence for varying speed of light. |
16 Aug 2005 03:34:02 PM |
|
|
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in
news:oxqMe.92147$zY4.71038@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com:
"bz" <bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns96B4801BADE6BWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139...
Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in news:ISoMe.256930$_o.43342
@attbi_s71:
bz wrote:
You have to understand that Ken's definition of 'absolute motion' is
different from SR's. Until you understand that, nothing will make
any sense.
Perhaps you could clarify those two definitions for us.
Check my understanding please:
SR doesn't deal with absolute motion, as far as I know. :)
Only relative motion between inertial frames of reference.
SR deals with absolute motion because it is based on relative motion.
Is that english or a new form of double speak?
Relative motion between two objects A and B is the vector difference of
the vector component of A's absolute motion and the vector component of
B's absolute motion along the line joining A and B.
I would say it a bit differently:
Relative motion is motion along the line joining A and B.
If you measure A's motion from some 3rd FoR [you can call that C, Z or
absolute{but that doesn't make it absolute}] AND you measure B's motion from
the same C, Z or 'absolute', THEN the vector difference of those motions will
give you the relative motion of A wrt B.
All items at rest with respect to one another constitute a Frame of
Reference. SR excludes frames that are not either at rest or undergoing
uniform linear motion.
There is no rest frame even though SR assume that there is such a frame.
Where does SR assume such a rest frame? I just looked through AE's 1905 paper
and I don't see any absolute rest frame. I do see him assuming that k is a
stationary system. But later he sets k in motion and K is the stationary
system.
He uses the word 'absolute' in three places:
"Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover
any motion of the earth relatively to the “light medium,” suggest that the
phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties
corresponding to the idea of absolute rest.
"
"The introduction of a “luminiferous ether” will
prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not
require an “absolutely stationary space”
"
"So we see that we cannot attach any absolute signification to the concept of
simultaneity, but that two events which, viewed from a system of co-
ordinates,
are simultaneous, can no longer be looked upon as simultaneous events when
envisaged from a system which is in motion relatively to that system.
"
An observer in SR assumes that he is in a state of rest and that's why
he asserts that clocks moving wrt him are running slow and rod moving
wrt him are contracted. BTW this is the reason why SR is incomplete.
I thougth SR was incomplete because it didn't include GR.
The ether theory that SR superceeded had an absolute frame of reference
[the
ether] and any motion when expressed with respect to that stationary
frame would be absolute motion.
Right.
Good to get something right.
Seto's absolute motion seems to always be measured wrt a light source
or
in
the vertical direction.
Wrong. IRT says: Absolute motion is that motion of an object wrt the
light waves in the ether.
OH, the light WAVES, not the light SOURCE?
On earth the direction of absolute motion
appears to be in the vertical direction wrt the horizontal light rays.
What about wrt vertical light rays? Is the absolute motion horizontal then?
This interpretation is supported by the MMX null result. Also this
interpretation is supported by the observed frequency shift in the
vertical direction in the Pound-Rebka experiments
Of course 'conventional absolute motion' could NOT always be vertical
unless
the earth was flat and infinite in extent.
It appears that you have a comprehension problem.
I sure do. I can't comprehend how absolute motion can always be vertical.
How badly did I mess up?
Very badly.
Teach me.
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Doppler shift is evidence for varying speed of light. |
17 Aug 2005 09:23:38 AM |
|
|
"bz" <bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns96B49E9E58B13WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139...
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in
news:oxqMe.92147$zY4.71038@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com:
"bz" <bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns96B4801BADE6BWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139...
Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in news:ISoMe.256930$_o.43342
@attbi_s71:
bz wrote:
You have to understand that Ken's definition of 'absolute motion' is
different from SR's. Until you understand that, nothing will make
any sense.
Perhaps you could clarify those two definitions for us.
Check my understanding please:
SR doesn't deal with absolute motion, as far as I know. :)
Only relative motion between inertial frames of reference.
SR deals with absolute motion because it is based on relative motion.
Is that english or a new form of double speak?
Relative motion between two objects A and B is the vector difference of
the vector component of A's absolute motion and the vector component of
B's absolute motion along the line joining A and B.
I would say it a bit differently:
Relative motion is motion along the line joining A and B.
If you measure A's motion from some 3rd FoR [you can call that C, Z or
absolute{but that doesn't make it absolute}] AND you measure B's motion
from
the same C, Z or 'absolute', THEN the vector difference of those motions
will
give you the relative motion of A wrt B.
Clearly you don't know what you are talking about. Relative motion between A
and B is the vector difference of their absolute motions.
All items at rest with respect to one another constitute a Frame of
Reference. SR excludes frames that are not either at rest or undergoing
uniform linear motion.
There is no rest frame even though SR assume that there is such a frame.
Where does SR assume such a rest frame? I just looked through AE's 1905
paper
and I don't see any absolute rest frame. I do see him assuming that k is a
stationary system. But later he sets k in motion and K is the stationary
system.
SR assumes that the observer is in a stationary frame and that's why he can
asserts that all clcoks moving wrt him are running slow.
He uses the word 'absolute' in three places:
"Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to
discover
any motion of the earth relatively to the "light medium," suggest that the
phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties
corresponding to the idea of absolute rest.
Motion wrt the light medium can be detected by the proposed experiments in
the following link:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Experiment.pdf
:
"
"The introduction of a "luminiferous ether" will
prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not
require an "absolutely stationary space"
But he failed to realize that relative motion is derived from absolute
motions.
"
"So we see that we cannot attach any absolute signification to the concept
of
simultaneity, but that two events which, viewed from a system of co-
ordinates,
are simultaneous, can no longer be looked upon as simultaneous events when
envisaged from a system which is in motion relatively to that system.
This is a bogus assumption. He derive the bogus concept of relativity of
simultaneity by asserting the the train observer is moving wrt light. The
train observer must reach his own conclusion with regard to the simultaneity
of events in his own frame. If he is at the mid point of the two lightning
strikes then he must see these strikes to be simultaneous because the speed
of light in the train is isotropic.
"
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "bz" |
|
| Title: Re: Doppler shift is evidence for varying speed of light. |
17 Aug 2005 10:04:19 AM |
|
|
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in
news:KLHMe.96650$zY4.12068@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com:
"bz" <bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns96B49E9E58B13WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139...
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in
news:oxqMe.92147$zY4.71038@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com:
"bz" <bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns96B4801BADE6BWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139...
Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in
news:ISoMe.256930$_o.43342 @attbi_s71:
bz wrote:
You have to understand that Ken's definition of 'absolute motion'
is different from SR's. Until you understand that, nothing will
make any sense.
Perhaps you could clarify those two definitions for us.
Check my understanding please:
SR doesn't deal with absolute motion, as far as I know. :)
Only relative motion between inertial frames of reference.
SR deals with absolute motion because it is based on relative motion.
Is that english or a new form of double speak?
Relative motion between two objects A and B is the vector difference
of the vector component of A's absolute motion and the vector
component of B's absolute motion along the line joining A and B.
I would say it a bit differently:
Relative motion is motion along the line joining A and B.
If you measure A's motion from some 3rd FoR [you can call that C, Z or
absolute{but that doesn't make it absolute}] AND you measure B's motion
from
the same C, Z or 'absolute', THEN the vector difference of those
motions
will
give you the relative motion of A wrt B.
Clearly you don't know what you are talking about. Relative motion
between A and B is the vector difference of their absolute motions.
By YOUR definition, not by the commonly accepted definition of relative
motion.
http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~vawter/PhysicsNet/Topics/Vectors/RelativeMotion.html
[note: nothing there about 'absolute motion']
http://www.phy.ntnu.edu.tw/java/relativeVelocity/relativeVelocity.html?
CFID=4738643&CFTOKEN=11484368
[note: nothing there about 'absolute motion', nice java demo]
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relmot.html
[note: nothing there about 'absolute motion']
All items at rest with respect to one another constitute a Frame of
Reference. SR excludes frames that are not either at rest or
undergoing uniform linear motion.
There is no rest frame even though SR assume that there is such a
frame.
Where does SR assume such a rest frame? I just looked through AE's 1905
paper and I don't see any absolute rest frame. I do see him assuming
that k is a stationary system. But later he sets k in motion and K is
the stationary system.
SR assumes that the observer is in a stationary frame and that's why he
can asserts that all clcoks moving wrt him are running slow.
SHOW ME WHERE he assume an absolute rest frame!
If I understand him correctly, he says that IF I AM MOVING, all other
clocks are still running slow wrt my clock. PoR.
He uses the word 'absolute' in three places:
"Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to
discover any motion of the earth relatively to the "light medium,"
suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics
possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest.
Motion wrt the light medium can be detected by the proposed experiments
in the following link:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Experiment.pdf
MUCH TOO COMPLEX.
:
"
"The introduction of a "luminiferous ether" will
prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will
not require an "absolutely stationary space"
But he failed to realize that relative motion is derived from absolute
motions.
Show evidence of 'absolute motion'.
"
"So we see that we cannot attach any absolute signification to the
concept of
simultaneity, but that two events which, viewed from a system of co-
ordinates,
are simultaneous, can no longer be looked upon as simultaneous events
when envisaged from a system which is in motion relatively to that
system.
This is a bogus assumption. He derive the bogus concept of relativity of
simultaneity by asserting the the train observer is moving wrt light.
The train observer must reach his own conclusion with regard to the
simultaneity of events in his own frame. If he is at the mid point of
the two lightning strikes then he must see these strikes to be
simultaneous because the speed of light in the train is isotropic.
He shows that IF the strikes are seen as simultanious by the moving
observer, they will NOT be seen as simultanious by the observer on the
ground.
He shows that IF the strikes are seen as simultanious by the observer on
the ground, they will NOT be seen as simultanious by the observer on the
train.
He shows that 'simultanious' has no 'absolute' meaning.
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Doppler shift is evidence for varying speed of light. |
19 Aug 2005 09:38:46 AM |
|
|
"bz" <bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns96B566BC0CDADWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139...
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in
news:KLHMe.96650$zY4.12068@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com:
"bz" <bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns96B49E9E58B13WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139...
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in
news:oxqMe.92147$zY4.71038@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com:
"bz" <bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns96B4801BADE6BWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139...
Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in
news:ISoMe.256930$_o.43342 @attbi_s71:
bz wrote:
You have to understand that Ken's definition of 'absolute motion'
is different from SR's. Until you understand that, nothing will
make any sense.
Perhaps you could clarify those two definitions for us.
Check my understanding please:
SR doesn't deal with absolute motion, as far as I know. :)
Only relative motion between inertial frames of reference.
SR deals with absolute motion because it is based on relative motion.
Is that english or a new form of double speak?
Relative motion between two objects A and B is the vector difference
of the vector component of A's absolute motion and the vector
component of B's absolute motion along the line joining A and B.
I would say it a bit differently:
Relative motion is motion along the line joining A and B.
If you measure A's motion from some 3rd FoR [you can call that C, Z or
absolute{but that doesn't make it absolute}] AND you measure B's motion
from
the same C, Z or 'absolute', THEN the vector difference of those
motions
will
give you the relative motion of A wrt B.
Clearly you don't know what you are talking about. Relative motion
between A and B is the vector difference of their absolute motions.
By YOUR definition, not by the commonly accepted definition of relative
motion.
http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~vawter/PhysicsNet/Topics/Vectors/RelativeMotion.html
[note: nothing there about 'absolute motion']
http://www.phy.ntnu.edu.tw/java/relativeVelocity/relativeVelocity.html?
CFID=4738643&CFTOKEN=11484368
[note: nothing there about 'absolute motion', nice java demo]
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relmot.html
[note: nothing there about 'absolute motion']
These references assume the non-existence of absolute motionto begin with.
So what is your point?
All items at rest with respect to one another constitute a Frame of
Reference. SR excludes frames that are not either at rest or
undergoing uniform linear motion.
There is no rest frame even though SR assume that there is such a
frame.
Where does SR assume such a rest frame? I just looked through AE's 1905
paper and I don't see any absolute rest frame. I do see him assuming
that k is a stationary system. But later he sets k in motion and K is
the stationary system.
SR assumes that the observer is in a stationary frame and that's why he
can asserts that all clcoks moving wrt him are running slow.
SHOW ME WHERE he assume an absolute rest frame!
K is the stationary system....that is an assumption of absolute rest. That's
why K concludes that k is the one who is moving. That's K concludes that
k's clock is running slow compared to his (K's) clock.
If I understand him correctly, he says that IF I AM MOVING, all other
clocks are still running slow wrt my clock. PoR.
He uses the word 'absolute' in three places:
"Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to
discover any motion of the earth relatively to the "light medium,"
suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics
possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest.
Motion wrt the light medium can be detected by the proposed experiments
in the following link:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Experiment.pdf
MUCH TOO COMPLEX.
No it is very simple.
:
"
"The introduction of a "luminiferous ether" will
prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will
not require an "absolutely stationary space"
But he failed to realize that relative motion is derived from absolute
motions.
Show evidence of 'absolute motion'.
Do the experiments I proposed.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "bz" |
|
| Title: Re: Doppler shift is evidence for varying speed of light. |
19 Aug 2005 10:13:54 AM |
|
|
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in
news:W9mNe.217$ja7.114@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com:
"bz" <bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns96B566BC0CDADWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139...
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in
news:KLHMe.96650$zY4.12068@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com:
"bz" <bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns96B49E9E58B13WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139...
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in
news:oxqMe.92147$zY4.71038@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com:
"bz" <bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns96B4801BADE6BWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139...
Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in
news:ISoMe.256930$_o.43342 @attbi_s71:
bz wrote:
You have to understand that Ken's definition of 'absolute
motion' is different from SR's. Until you understand that,
nothing will make any sense.
Perhaps you could clarify those two definitions for us.
Check my understanding please:
SR doesn't deal with absolute motion, as far as I know. :)
Only relative motion between inertial frames of reference.
SR deals with absolute motion because it is based on relative
motion.
Is that english or a new form of double speak?
Relative motion between two objects A and B is the vector
difference of the vector component of A's absolute motion and the
vector component of B's absolute motion along the line joining A
and B.
I would say it a bit differently:
Relative motion is motion along the line joining A and B.
If you measure A's motion from some 3rd FoR [you can call that C, Z
or absolute{but that doesn't make it absolute}] AND you measure B's
motion
from
the same C, Z or 'absolute', THEN the vector difference of those
motions
will
give you the relative motion of A wrt B.
Clearly you don't know what you are talking about. Relative motion
between A and B is the vector difference of their absolute motions.
By YOUR definition, not by the commonly accepted definition of relative
motion.
http://www.ac.wwu.edu~vawter/PhysicsNet/Topics/Vectors/RelativeMotion.ht
ml [note: nothing there about 'absolute motion']
http://www.phy.ntnu.edu.tw/java/relativeVelocity/relativeVelocity.html?
CFID=4738643&CFTOKEN=11484368
[note: nothing there about 'absolute motion', nice java demo]
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relmot.html
[note: nothing there about 'absolute motion']
These references assume the non-existence of absolute motion to begin
with. So what is your point?
My point is that by the commonly accepted definition of relative motion,
there is no reference to any absolute FoR.
All items at rest with respect to one another constitute a Frame
of Reference. SR excludes frames that are not either at rest or
undergoing uniform linear motion.
There is no rest frame even though SR assume that there is such a
frame.
Where does SR assume such a rest frame? I just looked through AE's
1905 paper and I don't see any absolute rest frame. I do see him
assuming that k is a stationary system. But later he sets k in
motion and K is the stationary system.
SR assumes that the observer is in a stationary frame and that's why
he can asserts that all clcoks moving wrt him are running slow.
SHOW ME WHERE he assume an absolute rest frame!
K is the stationary system....that is an assumption of absolute rest.
NO. Einstein makes NO such assumption. He only assumes that K is at rest
wrt the observer. Relative rest. No absolute rest.
That's why K concludes that k is the one who is moving. That's K
concludes that k's clock is running slow compared to his (K's) clock.
Relative motion. Relativity. No absolutes. He says so very clearly.
If I understand him correctly, he says that IF I AM MOVING, all other
clocks are still running slow wrt my clock. PoR.
He uses the word 'absolute' in three places:
"Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to
discover any motion of the earth relatively to the "light medium,"
suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of
mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of
absolute rest.
Motion wrt the light medium can be detected by the proposed
experiments in the following link:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Experiment.pdf
MUCH TOO COMPLEX.
No it is very simple.
IYO.
:
"
"The introduction of a "luminiferous ether" will
prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed
will not require an "absolutely stationary space"
But he failed to realize that relative motion is derived from
absolute motions.
Show evidence of 'absolute motion'.
Do the experiments I proposed.
You proposed it. YOU do it.
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Doppler shift is evidence for varying speed of light. |
19 Aug 2005 01:18:41 PM |
|
|
"bz" <bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns96B76858937CAWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139...
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in
news:W9mNe.217$ja7.114@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com:
"bz" <bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns96B566BC0CDADWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139...
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in
news:KLHMe.96650$zY4.12068@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com:
"bz" <bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns96B49E9E58B13WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139...
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in
news:oxqMe.92147$zY4.71038@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com:
"bz" <bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns96B4801BADE6BWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139...
Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in
news:ISoMe.256930$_o.43342 @attbi_s71:
bz wrote:
http://www.ac.wwu.edu~vawter/PhysicsNet/Topics/Vectors/RelativeMotion.ht
ml [note: nothing there about 'absolute motion']
http://www.phy.ntnu.edu.tw/java/relativeVelocity/relativeVelocity.html?
CFID=4738643&CFTOKEN=11484368
[note: nothing there about 'absolute motion', nice java demo]
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relmot.html
[note: nothing there about 'absolute motion']
These references assume the non-existence of absolute motion to begin
with. So what is your point?
My point is that by the commonly accepted definition of relative motion,
there is no reference to any absolute FoR.
If you assume that there is no absolute frame of rest then there is no
absolute frame of rest. So again what is your point?
SR assumes that the observer is in a stationary frame and that's why
he can asserts that all clcoks moving wrt him are running slow.
SHOW ME WHERE he assume an absolute rest frame!
K is the stationary system....that is an assumption of absolute rest.
NO. Einstein makes NO such assumption. He only assumes that K is at rest
wrt the observer. Relative rest. No absolute rest.
Then K can't assume that k's clcok is only running slow.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "bz" |
|
| Title: Re: Doppler shift is evidence for varying speed of light. |
19 Aug 2005 01:39:11 PM |
|
|
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in
news:5opNe.299$ja7.245@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com:
"bz" <bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns96B76858937CAWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139...
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in
news:W9mNe.217$ja7.114@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com:
"bz" <bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns96B566BC0CDADWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139...
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in
news:KLHMe.96650$zY4.12068@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com:
"bz" <bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns96B49E9E58B13WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139...
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in
news:oxqMe.92147$zY4.71038@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com:
"bz" <bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns96B4801BADE6BWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139...
Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in
news:ISoMe.256930$_o.43342 @attbi_s71:
bz wrote:
http://www.ac.wwu.edu~vawter/PhysicsNet/Topics/Vectors/RelativeMotion.ht
ml [note: nothing there about 'absolute motion']
http://www.phy.ntnu.edu.tw/java/relativeVelocity/relativeVelocity.htm
l? CFID=4738643&CFTOKEN=11484368
[note: nothing there about 'absolute motion', nice java demo]
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relmot.html
[note: nothing there about 'absolute motion']
These references assume the non-existence of absolute motion to begin
with. So what is your point?
My point is that by the commonly accepted definition of relative
motion, there is no reference to any absolute FoR.
If you assume that there is no absolute frame of rest then there is no
absolute frame of rest.
Right.
So again what is your point?
That your interpretation of SR depends on an absolute that is absolutely
not present in Einsteins paper, nor in any commonly accepted version of SR.
SR assumes that the observer is in a stationary frame and that's
why he can asserts that all clcoks moving wrt him are running
slow.
SHOW ME WHERE he assume an absolute rest frame!
K is the stationary system....that is an assumption of absolute rest.
NO. Einstein makes NO such assumption. He only assumes that K is at
rest wrt the observer. Relative rest. No absolute rest.
Then K can't assume that k's clcok is only running slow.
Right. K can only find that k's clock is running slow WRT K's clock.
No absolute time implied.
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Doppler shift is evidence for varying speed of light. |
20 Aug 2005 05:08:25 PM |
|
|
"bz" <bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns96B78B2692F52WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139...
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in
news:5opNe.299$ja7.245@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com:
"bz" <bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns96B76858937CAWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139...
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in
news:W9mNe.217$ja7.114@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com:
"bz" <bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns96B566BC0CDADWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139...
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in
news:KLHMe.96650$zY4.12068@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com:
"bz" <bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns96B49E9E58B13WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139...
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in
news:oxqMe.92147$zY4.71038@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com:
"bz" <bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns96B4801BADE6BWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139...
Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in
news:ISoMe.256930$_o.43342 @attbi_s71:
bz wrote:
http://www.ac.wwu.edu~vawter/PhysicsNet/Topics/Vectors/RelativeMotion.ht
ml [note: nothing there about 'absolute motion']
http://www.phy.ntnu.edu.tw/java/relativeVelocity/relativeVelocity.htm
l? CFID=4738643&CFTOKEN=11484368
[note: nothing there about 'absolute motion', nice java demo]
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relmot.html
[note: nothing there about 'absolute motion']
These references assume the non-existence of absolute motion to begin
with. So what is your point?
My point is that by the commonly accepted definition of relative
motion, there is no reference to any absolute FoR.
If you assume that there is no absolute frame of rest then there is no
absolute frame of rest.
Right.
So again what is your point?
That your interpretation of SR depends on an absolute that is absolutely
not present in Einsteins paper, nor in any commonly accepted version of
SR.
If you want to extend SR to include gravity then you need the absolute
frame. The result is IRT. If you want to be stagnant then stick with SR.
NO. Einstein makes NO such assumption. He only assumes that K is at
rest wrt the observer. Relative rest. No absolute rest.
Then K can't assume that k's clcok is only running slow.
Right. K can only find that k's clock is running slow WRT K's clock.
No absolute time implied.
No....wrt K's clcok k's clock can run slow or fast. That's the reason why
SR is incomplete.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "bz" |
|
| Title: Re: Doppler shift is evidence for varying speed of light. |
21 Aug 2005 07:01:29 PM |
|
|
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in
news:tRNNe.10399$gB.1119@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com:
"bz" <bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns96B78B2692F52WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139...
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in
news:5opNe.299$ja7.245@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com:
"bz" <bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns96B76858937CAWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139...
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in
news:W9mNe.217$ja7.114@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com:
"bz" <bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns96B566BC0CDADWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139...
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in
news:KLHMe.96650$zY4.12068@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com:
"bz" <bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns96B49E9E58B13WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139...
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in
news:oxqMe.92147$zY4.71038@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com:
"bz" <bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns96B4801BADE6BWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139...
Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in
news:ISoMe.256930$_o.43342 @attbi_s71:
bz wrote:
http://www.ac.wwu.edu~vawter/PhysicsNet/Topics/Vectors/RelativeMotion.
ht
ml [note: nothing there about 'absolute motion']
http://www.phy.ntnu.edu.tw/java/relativeVelocity/relativeVelocity.htm
l? CFID=4738643&CFTOKEN=11484368
[note: nothing there about 'absolute motion', nice java demo]
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relmot.html
[note: nothing there about 'absolute motion']
These references assume the non-existence of absolute motion to
begin with. So what is your point?
My point is that by the commonly accepted definition of relative
motion, there is no reference to any absolute FoR.
If you assume that there is no absolute frame of rest then there is
no absolute frame of rest.
Right.
So again what is your point?
That your interpretation of SR depends on an absolute that is
absolutely not present in Einsteins paper, nor in any commonly accepted
version of
SR.
If you want to extend SR to include gravity then you need the absolute
frame. The result is IRT. If you want to be stagnant then stick with SR.
First, I want to understand SR. I don't think you are trying to extend SR,
you are trying to overthrow it.
NO. Einstein makes NO such assumption. He only assumes that K is at
rest wrt the observer. Relative rest. No absolute rest.
Then K can't assume that k's clcok is only running slow.
Right. K can only find that k's clock is running slow WRT K's clock.
No absolute time implied.
No....wrt K's clcok k's clock can run slow or fast. That's the reason
why SR is incomplete.
SR's completeness or incompleteness; and IRT do not depend on your
peculiar definitions of relative and absolute motion.
Your interpretation of SR depends on absolute motion. Absolute motion is
not a portion of Einsteins SR. The inability to define an absolute frame
of reference is a cornerstone of Einsteins SR.
You can not complete SR until you understand and can discuss it without
distorting what Einstein said.
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Doppler shift is evidence for varying speed of light. |
22 Aug 2005 06:45:39 PM |
|
|
"bz" <bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns96B9C1CBDD42WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139...
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in
news:tRNNe.10399$gB.1119@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com:
"bz" <bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns96B78B2692F52WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139...
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in
news:5opNe.299$ja7.245@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com:
"bz" <bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns96B76858937CAWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139...
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in
news:W9mNe.217$ja7.114@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com:
"bz" <bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns96B566BC0CDADWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139...
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in
news:KLHMe.96650$zY4.12068@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com:
"bz" <bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns96B49E9E58B13WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139...
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in
news:oxqMe.92147$zY4.71038@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com:
"bz" <bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns96B4801BADE6BWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139...
Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in
news:ISoMe.256930$_o.43342 @attbi_s71:
bz wrote:
http://www.ac.wwu.edu~vawter/PhysicsNet/Topics/Vectors/RelativeMotion.
ht
ml [note: nothing there about 'absolute motion']
http://www.phy.ntnu.edu.tw/java/relativeVelocity/relativeVelocity.htm
l? CFID=4738643&CFTOKEN=11484368
[note: nothing there about 'absolute motion', nice java demo]
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relmot.html
[note: nothing there about 'absolute motion']
These references assume the non-existence of absolute motion to
begin with. So what is your point?
My point is that by the commonly accepted definition of relative
motion, there is no reference to any absolute FoR.
If you assume that there is no absolute frame of rest then there is
no absolute frame of rest.
Right.
So again what is your point?
That your interpretation of SR depends on an absolute that is
absolutely not present in Einsteins paper, nor in any commonly accepted
version of
SR.
If you want to extend SR to include gravity then you need the absolute
frame. The result is IRT. If you want to be stagnant then stick with SR.
First, I want to understand SR. I don't think you are trying to extend SR,
you are trying to overthrow it.
NO. Einstein makes NO such assumption. He only assumes that K is at
rest wrt the observer. Relative rest. No absolute rest.
Then K can't assume that k's clcok is only running slow.
Right. K can only find that k's clock is running slow WRT K's clock.
No absolute time implied.
No....wrt K's clcok k's clock can run slow or fast. That's the reason
why SR is incomplete.
SR's completeness or incompleteness; and IRT do not depend on your
peculiar definitions of relative and absolute motion.
Idiot. I am tired of explaining things to you.
The postulates of IRT are as follows:
1. The laws of physics based on a clock second and a light-second to measure
length are the same for all observers in all inertial reference frames.
2. The speed of light in free space based on a clock second and a
light-second to measure length has the same mathematical ratio c in all
directions and all inertial frames.
3. The laws of physics based on a defined absolute second and the physical
length of a rod is different in different frames of reference.
4. The one-way speed of light in free space based on a defined absolute
second and the physical length of a measuring rod has a different
mathematical ratio for light speed in different inertial frames. The speed
of light based on a defined absolute second and the physical length of a
measuring rod is a maximum in the rest frame of the E-Matrix.
As you can see the first two postulates of IRT are the SR postulates.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "bz" |
|
| Title: Re: Doppler shift is evidence for varying speed of light. |
22 Aug 2005 08:23:58 PM |
|
|
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in
news:DstOe.20762$2Q3.6206@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com:
"bz" <bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns96B9C1CBDD42WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139...
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in
news:tRNNe.10399$gB.1119@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com:
"bz" <bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns96B78B2692F52WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139...
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in
news:5opNe.299$ja7.245@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com:
"bz" <bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns96B76858937CAWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139...
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in
news:W9mNe.217$ja7.114@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com:
"bz" <bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns96B566BC0CDADWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139...
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in
news:KLHMe.96650$zY4.12068@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com:
"bz" <bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns96B49E9E58B13WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139...
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in
news:oxqMe.92147$zY4.71038@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com:
"bz" <bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns96B4801BADE6BWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139..
.
Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in
news:ISoMe.256930$_o.43342 @attbi_s71:
bz wrote:
http://www.ac.wwu.edu~vawter/PhysicsNet/Topics/Vectors/RelativeMotion.
ht
ml [note: nothing there about 'absolute motion']
http://www.phy.ntnu.edu.tw/java/relativeVelocity/relativeVelocity.htm
l? CFID=4738643&CFTOKEN=11484368
[note: nothing there about 'absolute motion', nice java demo]
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relmot.html
[note: nothing there about 'absolute motion']
These references assume the non-existence of absolute motion to
begin with. So what is your point?
My point is that by the commonly accepted definition of relative
motion, there is no reference to any absolute FoR.
If you assume that there is no absolute frame of rest then there
is no absolute frame of rest.
Right.
So again what is your point?
That your interpretation of SR depends on an absolute that is
absolutely not present in Einsteins paper, nor in any commonly
accepted version of
SR.
If you want to extend SR to include gravity then you need the
absolute frame. The result is IRT. If you want to be stagnant then
stick with SR.
First, I want to understand SR. I don't think you are trying to extend
SR, you are trying to overthrow it.
NO. Einstein makes NO such assumption. He only assumes that K is
at rest wrt the observer. Relative rest. No absolute rest.
Then K can't assume that k's clcok is only running slow.
Right. K can only find that k's clock is running slow WRT K's clock.
No absolute time implied.
No....wrt K's clcok k's clock can run slow or fast. That's the
reason why SR is incomplete.
SR's completeness or incompleteness; and IRT do not depend on your
peculiar definitions of relative and absolute motion.
Idiot. I am tired of explaining things to you.
If I think someone is an idiot, I don't waste their time, or mine,
attempting to communicate with them.
I also do not communicate with those that lack enough respect for themself
to treat others with the respect they would want to receive. This is my
first and last warning to you.
The postulates of IRT are as follows:
1. The laws of physics based on a clock second and a light-second to
measure length are the same for all observers in all inertial reference
frames. 2. The speed of light in free space based on a clock second and
a light-second to measure length has the same mathematical ratio c in
all directions and all inertial frames.
3. The laws of physics based on a defined absolute second and the
physical length of a rod is different in different frames of reference.
4. The one-way speed of light in free space based on a defined absolute
second and the physical length of a measuring rod has a different
mathematical ratio for light speed in different inertial frames. The
speed of light based on a defined absolute second and the physical
length of a measuring rod is a maximum in the rest frame of the
E-Matrix.
As you can see the first two postulates of IRT are the SR postulates.
I see NOTHING there about absolute velocity nor about the absolute motion
always being perpendicular (vertical) wrt the path of a 'horizontal beam of
light.'
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Doppler shift is evidence for varying speed of light. |
23 Aug 2005 08:51:15 AM |
|
|
"bz" <bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns96BACFC7B934DWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139...
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in
news:DstOe.20762$2Q3.6206@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com:
"bz" <bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns96B9C1CBDD42WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139...
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in
news:tRNNe.10399$gB.1119@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com:
"bz" <bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns96B78B2692F52WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139...
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in
news:5opNe.299$ja7.245@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com:
"bz" <bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns96B76858937CAWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139...
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in
news:W9mNe.217$ja7.114@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com:
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
