Doppler shift is evidence for varying speed of light.

Science > Physics > Doppler shift is evidence for varying speed of light.

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 9 of 16

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: "tj Frazir"
Title: Re: Doppler shift is evidence for varying speed of light.	14 Aug 2005 08:00:27 PM

Wave lenth X frequency equals c without exception .
All the way down to a strait line at c .
Then the frequency is constant.
A star near the edge of the visible universe still
emits and at no time did the photons going past the observer quit.
But because c is constant the photon can not be detected. That dont
mean its not there ,,because if you travel in its direction fast you
will then detect it .
Empty space is energy under presure per time unit as stait line photons
pass evry point they shaped uniform space. expanding as all stars
inside and outside the universe move apart wile dark energy is stait
line photon presure .
its only resistance is time .

.

User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org"
Title: Re: Doppler shift is evidence for varying speed of light.	13 Aug 2005 10:14:06 AM

"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:lvnLe.71760$yC5.1368@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
|
| Sigh....here's what I said: The PoR says that each observer (A or B)
| measures his sodium light to have the same frequency. A will measure
B's
| sodium light to have a different frequency and that is called doppler
shift.
Right on, kiddo!
| >
| > > >
| > > > We have a device that depends ONLY on wavelength, as is clear
from the
| > > > formula.
| > >
| > > Replace constant wavelength with "varying light speed/varying
frequency"
| in
| > > the formula you get the same thing.
| >
| > Not if the same device scatters two waves with the *same* wavelength
| > with *different* wave speeds through the *same* angle. Then you have
| > clear evidence that the device measures wavelength, independent of
| > speed.
|
| NO.
Draper is a phuckwit.
Well done, Ken.
Androcles.
.

User: "The Ghost In The Machine"
Title: Re: Doppler shift is evidence for varying speed of light.	07 Aug 2005 11:00:08 PM

In sci.physics, kenseto
<kenseto@erinet.com>
wrote
on Mon, 08 Aug 2005 00:03:47 GMT
<DjxJe.49429$B52.32321@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>:

"bz" <bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns96AB8AD91EDBCWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139...

"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in
news:_erJe.65398$yC5.62944@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com:

"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1123258366.282843.324460@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

kenseto wrote:

"bz" <bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns96A7A32514010WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139...

"kenseto@erinet.com" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in
news:1123095169.862437.241090@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

No...if frequency varies, then speed of light varies because
lambda remains constant.

If lambda remained constant, diffraction gratings would show the
same angle
of diffraction for the emission lines of a source that was
approaching us
or receeding from us.

YES.

....

The angle of diffraction depends on lambda/d, where d
is the grating spacing. Speed doesn't come into it. If
lambda and d are unchanged, angle is unchanged. So we
would never see "red shift" in spectrometers, which pass
light through diffraction gratings.

The scattering angle is dependent on the state of absolute motion of the
target wrt the incoming light.

Sorry, theta = +/- arcsin(m lamda/d)

where theta is the angle of refraction, m is the spectral order, lamda is
the wavelength and d is the spacing between adjecent groves.

So how do you determine wavelength of a source? Isn't it by measuring the
frequency and assume that the speed of light is c? So I guess the scattering
angle is dependent on the speed of light after all.

Presumably, an interferometer can show a difference in wavelength
between two sources of different speeds. (That is what MMX intended,
in fact; its failure shocked just about everyone.)

Nothing in the formula shows any dependent on the velocity of source.

Absent a new formula for diffraction gratings, if lamda is constant, as

you

say, then the angle of refraction must be constant.

NO....the angle of refaction is dependent on the state of absolute
motion of the sou4rce and the observer.

Can you show the precise relationship, mathematically?
In other words, assume a diffraction grating of depth
d and groovespacing lambda, with incoming light of a
certain wavelength lambda' and speed v. (Presumably it's
easiest to specify r = lambda'/lambda, in compatible units;
these would be physical as opposed to lightwave units.)
Also, assume an incoming angle theta from the vertical.
How much light is reflected at an outgoing angle phi,
again from the vertical?
I'm not sure that v makes that much difference in this
problem; it would appear to me to drop right out of the
equation.

Ken Seto

--
#191,

It's still legal to go .sigless.
.

User: "Jan Panteltje"
Title: Re: Doppler shift is evidence for varying speed of light.	05 Aug 2005 11:47:20 AM

On a sunny day (5 Aug 2005 09:12:46 -0700) it happened "Randy Poe"
<poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1123258366.282843.324460@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>:

kenseto wrote:

"bz" <bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns96A7A32514010WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139...

"kenseto@erinet.com" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in
news:1123095169.862437.241090@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

No...if frequency varies, then speed of light varies because lambda
remains constant.

If lambda remained constant, diffraction gratings would show the same

angle

of diffraction for the emission lines of a source that was approaching us
or receeding from us.

YES.

....not if light is being transmitted by a stationary ether at constant
speed and the observer's absolute motion is moving wrt these light waves in
the ether.

When we approach the lightsource, we pass through the wave's maxima
and minima a bit faster then if we were at a constant distance from it.
So for US the length of the wave became shorter, 'the wavelength became
shorter'.
Wavelength changes.
As does frequency.
Einstein was a Jew.
.

User: "PD"
Title: Re: Doppler shift is evidence for varying speed of light.	05 Aug 2005 01:31:54 PM

Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (5 Aug 2005 09:12:46 -0700) it happened "Randy Poe"
<poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1123258366.282843.324460@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>:

kenseto wrote:

"bz" <bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns96A7A32514010WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139...

"kenseto@erinet.com" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in
news:1123095169.862437.241090@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

No...if frequency varies, then speed of light varies because lambda
remains constant.

If lambda remained constant, diffraction gratings would show the same

angle

of diffraction for the emission lines of a source that was approaching us
or receeding from us.

YES.

....not if light is being transmitted by a stationary ether at constant
speed and the observer's absolute motion is moving wrt these light waves in
the ether.

The operation of a diffraction grating in no way depends on the time
between successive wavefronts.

As does frequency.
Einstein was a Jew.

And you are crippled. Your point?
PD
.

User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org"
Title: Re: Doppler shift is evidence for varying speed of light.	05 Aug 2005 02:55:17 PM

"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1123266714.561807.266110@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
|
| Jan Panteltje wrote:
| > When we approach the lightsource, we pass through the wave's maxima
| > and minima a bit faster then if we were at a constant distance from
it.
| > So for US the length of the wave became shorter, 'the wavelength
became
| > shorter'.
| > Wavelength changes.
|
| The operation of a diffraction grating in no way depends on the time
| between successive wavefronts.
We know we should expect blueshift, the shift is measured with
a diffraction grating, we do see the shift, therefore the wavelength
is shorter or the light approaches us faster.
The change in frequency when you approach a source is analogous
to driving a car over a bumpy road; the faster you go, the more rapidly
you hit the bumps, but the bumps have a fixed distance between them.
An aetherialist (I think Ken Seto is the last of them, I could be wrong)
would say we can use the same model as sound, since we are moving
through the aether, the wavelength hasn't changed, only the frequency
has changed (bumpy road model), but if we are at rest with respect
to the aether and the source is in motion, the frequency has not changed
but the wavelength has; (plane flying at mach 1 breaking windows model)
and the most familiar, we all hear it every day from the swish of car
tyres
and engine noise.
c+u
f' = f---------
c+v
where u is the speed of the observer with respect to the aether and
v is the speed of the source with respect to the aether.
An emissionist says only the relative velocity matters, uses the bumpy
road model, the road is coming to you is perfectly valid. v is the
relative
speed between source and observer. This is the PoR model,
the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor that
Einstein mentions but quickly forgets about.
c+v
\nu' = \nu---------
c
c+v = \lambda\nu, \lambda is constant and the shift is evidence of c+v.
A relativist would say c has only one value, and since c = \lambda\nu
the frequency has changed as well as the wavelength.
(c+v)/c
\nu' = \nu.sqrt [-----------]
(c-v)/c
(c-v)/c
\lambda' = \lambda.sqrt [-----------]
(c+v)/c
For v = 0.0001c, the speed of Earth in it's orbit, no distinction
between
the three models is directly measurable, all give approximately the same
shift.
MMX was intended to use the Earth moving in aether model,
c+u
f' = f---------
c+v
but it didn't happen, the source speed u isn't that of a star, it is
a moving light source in the apparatus with u = v.
Naturally there is no shift and the experiment was pointless.
Sagnac, on the other hand, is purely classical and the speed of light
has to be constant in the optical fibre and therefore c+v, c-v for the
observer.
Hence Doppler shift is evidence for varying light speed.
Androcles

.

User: "PD"
Title: Re: Doppler shift is evidence for varying speed of light.	05 Aug 2005 04:20:34 PM

Androcles wrote:

The point is the shift in the wavelength is there (measured by a
diffraction grating) and the shift in the frequency is there (measured
by a frequency counter or by resonant absorption), and the product of
those two is c.

The change in frequency when you approach a source is analogous
to driving a car over a bumpy road; the faster you go, the more rapidly
you hit the bumps, but the bumps have a fixed distance between them.

As mentioned to Seto and others in this thread, the operation of a
diffraction grating in no way depends on the time interval between
successive wavefronts.

An aetherialist (I think Ken Seto is the last of them, I could be wrong)
would say we can use the same model as sound, since we are moving
through the aether, the wavelength hasn't changed, only the frequency
has changed (bumpy road model), but if we are at rest with respect
to the aether and the source is in motion, the frequency has not changed
but the wavelength has; (plane flying at mach 1 breaking windows model)
and the most familiar, we all hear it every day from the swish of car
tyres
and engine noise.

c+u
f' = f---------
c+v

where u is the speed of the observer with respect to the aether and
v is the speed of the source with respect to the aether.

An emissionist says only the relative velocity matters, uses the bumpy
road model, the road is coming to you is perfectly valid. v is the
relative
speed between source and observer. This is the PoR model,
the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor that
Einstein mentions but quickly forgets about.

c+v
\nu' = \nu---------
c

c+v = \lambda\nu, \lambda is constant and the shift is evidence of c+v.

A relativist would say c has only one value, and since c = \lambda\nu
the frequency has changed as well as the wavelength.

(c+v)/c
\nu' = \nu.sqrt [-----------]
(c-v)/c

(c-v)/c
\lambda' = \lambda.sqrt [-----------]
(c+v)/c

For v = 0.0001c, the speed of Earth in it's orbit, no distinction
between
the three models is directly measurable, all give approximately the same
shift.

MMX was intended to use the Earth moving in aether model,
c+u
f' = f---------
c+v

but it didn't happen, the source speed u isn't that of a star, it is
a moving light source in the apparatus with u = v.
Naturally there is no shift and the experiment was pointless.

Sagnac, on the other hand, is purely classical and the speed of light
has to be constant in the optical fibre and therefore c+v, c-v for the
observer.
Hence Doppler shift is evidence for varying light speed.

Androcles

User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org"
Title: Re: Doppler shift is evidence for varying speed of light.	05 Aug 2005 05:56:14 PM

"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1123276834.786047.122470@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|
| Androcles wrote:
| > "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:1123266714.561807.266110@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| > |
| > | Jan Panteltje wrote:
| > | > When we approach the lightsource, we pass through the wave's
maxima
| > | > and minima a bit faster then if we were at a constant distance
from
| > it.
| > | > So for US the length of the wave became shorter, 'the wavelength
| > became
| > | > shorter'.
| > | > Wavelength changes.
| > |
| > | The operation of a diffraction grating in no way depends on the
time
| > | between successive wavefronts.
| >
| > We know we should expect blueshift, the shift is measured with
| > a diffraction grating, we do see the shift, therefore the wavelength
| > is shorter or the light approaches us faster.
|
| The point is the shift in the wavelength is there (measured by a
| diffraction grating) and the shift in the frequency is there (measured
| by a frequency counter or by resonant absorption), and the product of
| those two is c.
Frequency counter, huh?
You have electronics available that can operate at optical frequencies?
My, my, Draper, you are worth a fortune. Why don't you patent your
invention?
Or were you diffracting radio frequencies with a fence?
|
| >
| > The change in frequency when you approach a source is analogous
| > to driving a car over a bumpy road; the faster you go, the more
rapidly
| > you hit the bumps, but the bumps have a fixed distance between them.
|
| As mentioned to Seto and others in this thread, the operation of a
| diffraction grating in no way depends on the time interval between
| successive wavefronts.
So YOU say. Certainly the time interval between bumps in the road
changes
as a function of speed of the vehicle, and if we put a double slit in a
river
ripples on the surface will diffract at a different angle than that
would
on a still pond surface. The evidence contradicts you.
I don't believe you. I think you are making it up.
Nothing further to say, I see.
I take it then that you agree with all I've written below and accept
that
Doppler shift is evidence for a varying speed of light. Case closed.
Androcles.
| >
| > An aetherialist (I think Ken Seto is the last of them, I could be
wrong)
| > would say we can use the same model as sound, since we are moving
| > through the aether, the wavelength hasn't changed, only the
frequency
| > has changed (bumpy road model), but if we are at rest with respect
| > to the aether and the source is in motion, the frequency has not
changed
| > but the wavelength has; (plane flying at mach 1 breaking windows
model)
| > and the most familiar, we all hear it every day from the swish of
car
| > tyres
| > and engine noise.
| >
| > c+u
| > f' = f---------
| > c+v
| >
| > where u is the speed of the observer with respect to the aether and
| > v is the speed of the source with respect to the aether.
| >
| >
| > An emissionist says only the relative velocity matters, uses the
bumpy
| > road model, the road is coming to you is perfectly valid. v is the
| > relative
| > speed between source and observer. This is the PoR model,
| > the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor
that
| > Einstein mentions but quickly forgets about.
| >
| > c+v
| > \nu' = \nu---------
| > c
| >
| > c+v = \lambda\nu, \lambda is constant and the shift is evidence of
c+v.
| >
| >
| > A relativist would say c has only one value, and since c =
\lambda\nu
| > the frequency has changed as well as the wavelength.
| >
| > (c+v)/c
| > \nu' = \nu.sqrt [-----------]
| > (c-v)/c
| >
| >
| > (c-v)/c
| > \lambda' = \lambda.sqrt [-----------]
| > (c+v)/c
| >
| > For v = 0.0001c, the speed of Earth in it's orbit, no distinction
| > between
| > the three models is directly measurable, all give approximately the
same
| > shift.
| >
| >
| > MMX was intended to use the Earth moving in aether model,
| > c+u
| > f' = f---------
| > c+v
| >
| > but it didn't happen, the source speed u isn't that of a star, it
is
| > a moving light source in the apparatus with u = v.
| > Naturally there is no shift and the experiment was pointless.
| >
| > Sagnac, on the other hand, is purely classical and the speed of
light
| > has to be constant in the optical fibre and therefore c+v, c-v for
the
| > observer.
| > Hence Doppler shift is evidence for varying light speed.
| >
| > Androcles
|
.

User: "Randy Poe"
Title: Re: Doppler shift is evidence for varying speed of light.	05 Aug 2005 06:51:48 PM

Androcles wrote:

"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1123276834.786047.122470@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| The point is the shift in the wavelength is there (measured by a
| diffraction grating) and the shift in the frequency is there (measured
| by a frequency counter or by resonant absorption), and the product of
| those two is c.

Frequency counter, huh?
You have electronics available that can operate at optical frequencies?
My, my, Draper, you are worth a fortune. Why don't you patent your
invention?

It's already been invented. NIST does optical frequency counting.

| As mentioned to Seto and others in this thread, the operation of a
| diffraction grating in no way depends on the time interval between
| successive wavefronts.

So YOU say.

So the geometric condition for constructive interference says.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/slits.html#c1

Certainly the time interval between bumps in the road
changes
as a function of speed of the vehicle, and if we put a double slit in a
river
ripples on the surface will diffract at a different angle than that
would
on a still pond surface. The evidence contradicts you.

It does? Please provide an alternate theory of a diffraction
gratings in which the diffraction angle is something other
than a multiple of lambda/d, and includes a velocity term.
Is the hyperphyics site lying? Contradicted by evidence?
Have you ever actually done an experiment with diffraction
gratings? Have you ever actually checked whether the angle
is at the predicted location of m*lambda/d? I have. The
evidence contradicts YOU.
- Randy
.

User: "Gregory L. Hansen"
Title: Re: Doppler shift is evidence for varying speed of light.	05 Aug 2005 09:46:43 PM

In article <i8SIe.113246$Pf3.52525@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
Androcles <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote:

Too late. Google "frequency comb". Humans are clever monkeys.
--
"Is that plutonium on your gums?"
"Shut up and kiss me!"
-- Marge and Homer Simpson
.

User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org"
Title: Re: Doppler shift is evidence for varying speed of light.	05 Aug 2005 11:33:34 PM

"Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:dd18aj$tm$4@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...
| In article <i8SIe.113246$Pf3.52525@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
| Androcles <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote:
| >
| >"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
| >news:1123276834.786047.122470@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| >|
| >| Androcles wrote:
| >| > "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
| >| > news:1123266714.561807.266110@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| >| > |
| >| > | Jan Panteltje wrote:
| >| > | > When we approach the lightsource, we pass through the wave's
| >maxima
| >| > | > and minima a bit faster then if we were at a constant
distance
| >from
| >| > it.
| >| > | > So for US the length of the wave became shorter, 'the
wavelength
| >| > became
| >| > | > shorter'.
| >| > | > Wavelength changes.
| >| > |
| >| > | The operation of a diffraction grating in no way depends on the
| >time
| >| > | between successive wavefronts.
| >| >
| >| > We know we should expect blueshift, the shift is measured with
| >| > a diffraction grating, we do see the shift, therefore the
wavelength
| >| > is shorter or the light approaches us faster.
| >|
| >| The point is the shift in the wavelength is there (measured by a
| >| diffraction grating) and the shift in the frequency is there
(measured
| >| by a frequency counter or by resonant absorption), and the product
of
| >| those two is c.
| >
| >Frequency counter, huh?
| >You have electronics available that can operate at optical
frequencies?
| >My, my, Draper, you are worth a fortune. Why don't you patent your
| >invention?
|
| Too late. Google "frequency comb". Humans are clever monkeys.
Interesting.
Now let us suppose we have a sine wave that has a 1 metre wavelength
with a frequency of 1Hz. This could be a length of rope, for example,
attached to a crank that revolves at 2pi radians/second. The speed of
the
wave relative to an observer is 1metre/second.
The observer then walks beside the wave at 1 metre/second and remains
at a crest or trough, concluding that the frequency is zero and hence
the
speed of the wave, relative to him, is zero. c = 0 * wavelength = 0
He is correct, in his FoR that is the speed of the wave.
Now he walks back and he should find the speed of the wave is
2 metres/second, but there is a problem. He cannot see the next crest
to measure the wavelength as 1 metre. If he could, he'd deduce
tht the frequency of crests passing him was 2 Hz and the speed
of the wave in his FoR was c =2* 1 = 2metres/sec, but he can't.
So what he does is rely on the distance he walks, pacing out
one metre and noting when a crest passes him.
Starting at crest 0, he steps forward 1 metre in 1 second and finds...
yep... a crest. But it isn't crest 1, it is crest 2. He stepped past
crest 1. He concludes that the meets 1 crest a second and so the
speed of the rope wave is 1 metre/second in his FoR, not 2 m/s.
Ah, you say, he should have counted crest 1 at 0.5 second.
Ok, let's do that. He steps forward 0.5 metres in 0.5 seconds
and meets crest 1. The frequency of 1 cycle per 0.5 seconds
is 1/0.5 = 2 Hz. So he concludes that the speed of the wave
is 0.5m * 2s = 1 m/s again, in his FoR. It should be 2 m/s, the real
wavelength is 1 meter and 1m * 2 Hz = 2 m/s.
This is the situation we find ourselves in with light.
When we try to measure the wavelength, we cannot see where
the next crest is.
http://www.cs.cf.ac.uk/Dave/Multimedia/node149.html#1hz
"Now if we sample at twice the sample frequency, i.e Nyquist Rate, we
start to make some progress. An alternative way of viewing thr waveform
(re)genereation is to think of straight lines joining up the peaks of
the samples. In this case (at these sample points) we see we get a
sawtooth wave that begins to start crudely approximating a sine wave"
So sorry, but your clever monkeys solution doesn't help, Jan Panteltje
is correct he says
"So for US the length of the wave became shorter, 'the wavelength
became shorter'. Wavelength changes."
Paul Draper is incorrect when he says
"The operation of a diffraction grating in no way depends on the
time between successive wavefronts."
and he is correct when he says
"The point is the shift in the wavelength is there (measured by a
diffraction grating) and the shift in the frequency is there (measured
by a frequency counter or by resonant absorption), and the product of
those two is c." even though the true speed of the wave is c+v.
To find the true speed of the wave, we must keep either the frequency
or the wavelength constant.
Dopper shift is evidence for a varying speed of light. Use the emission
frequency or wavelength only.
Androcles
.

User: "PD"
Title: Re: Doppler shift is evidence for varying speed of light.	11 Aug 2005 03:21:13 PM

Androcles wrote:

Interesting, indeed, and essential to the point that using a method
that is sensitive the wavelength only, the wavelength of a signal can
be measured, and using another method that is sensitive to the
frequency only, the frequency of a signal can be measured. That being
the case, the speed of the signal is constrained.
This is the problem with Seto's argument. He thinks, somehow, that a
shift in frequency could point to *either* a change in speed or a
change in wavelength, and therefore that he is free to posit that it is
the speed that changes and not the wavelength, and that there is *no*
independent measure of the wavelength that does not presume c for the
speed. That's in error. Moreover, as has been pointed out to *you*,
photons generated at both LBL and Argonne advance light source
facilities (which are produced from sources in motion) have
measurements on all three parameters: wavelength, frequency, and time
of flight to experimental station (i.e. speed). It is hard to get much
better confirmation. Moreover, it's been pointed out to you that an
experiment featuring pi-zeros decaying in flight to gammas also had
measurements taken to *specifically* test SR, with complete
confirmation. You propose an alternate analysis of a binary that is
based on a c+v analysis; Seto proposes (sort of) an experiment to test
for absolute motion through the E-matrix. Both of these are superfluous
in the face of measurements that have already been made.

Now let us suppose we have a sine wave that has a 1 metre wavelength
with a frequency of 1Hz. This could be a length of rope, for example,
attached to a crank that revolves at 2pi radians/second. The speed of
the
wave relative to an observer is 1metre/second.
The observer then walks beside the wave at 1 metre/second and remains
at a crest or trough, concluding that the frequency is zero and hence
the
speed of the wave, relative to him, is zero. c = 0 * wavelength = 0
He is correct, in his FoR that is the speed of the wave.
Now he walks back and he should find the speed of the wave is
2 metres/second, but there is a problem. He cannot see the next crest
to measure the wavelength as 1 metre.

And that's because he's not using *independent* means to measure the
wavelength and the frequency. Now, if he reflected the wave in the rope
to produce a standing wave...

If he could, he'd deduce
tht the frequency of crests passing him was 2 Hz and the speed
of the wave in his FoR was c =2* 1 = 2metres/sec, but he can't.
So what he does is rely on the distance he walks, pacing out
one metre and noting when a crest passes him.
Starting at crest 0, he steps forward 1 metre in 1 second and finds...
yep... a crest. But it isn't crest 1, it is crest 2. He stepped past
crest 1. He concludes that the meets 1 crest a second and so the
speed of the rope wave is 1 metre/second in his FoR, not 2 m/s.
Ah, you say, he should have counted crest 1 at 0.5 second.
Ok, let's do that. He steps forward 0.5 metres in 0.5 seconds
and meets crest 1. The frequency of 1 cycle per 0.5 seconds
is 1/0.5 = 2 Hz. So he concludes that the speed of the wave
is 0.5m * 2s = 1 m/s again, in his FoR. It should be 2 m/s, the real
wavelength is 1 meter and 1m * 2 Hz = 2 m/s.
This is the situation we find ourselves in with light.
When we try to measure the wavelength, we cannot see where
the next crest is.

Sure you can. You're just not using the right means. You've fallen into
the SetoHole yourself. You're using a method that relies on *timing*
between successive crests. You just have to be a little more clever
about how to measure wavelength without waiting for successive crests.
I mentioned to Seto three such methods.

http://www.cs.cf.ac.uk/Dave/Multimedia/node149.html#1hz
"Now if we sample at twice the sample frequency, i.e Nyquist Rate, we
start to make some progress. An alternative way of viewing thr waveform
(re)genereation is to think of straight lines joining up the peaks of
the samples. In this case (at these sample points) we see we get a
sawtooth wave that begins to start crudely approximating a sine wave"

So sorry, but your clever monkeys solution doesn't help, Jan Panteltje
is correct he says
"So for US the length of the wave became shorter, 'the wavelength
became shorter'. Wavelength changes."
Paul Draper is incorrect when he says
"The operation of a diffraction grating in no way depends on the
time between successive wavefronts."

and he is correct when he says

"The point is the shift in the wavelength is there (measured by a
diffraction grating) and the shift in the frequency is there (measured
by a frequency counter or by resonant absorption), and the product of
those two is c." even though the true speed of the wave is c+v.

Except at the Advanced Light Source. Except in decaying pi-zeros.

To find the true speed of the wave, we must keep either the frequency
or the wavelength constant.
Dopper shift is evidence for a varying speed of light. Use the emission
frequency or wavelength only.
Androcles

User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org"
Title: Re: Doppler shift is evidence for varying speed of light.	11 Aug 2005 03:26:23 PM

"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1123791673.530011.36190@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
|

Draper:
I have to admit that I am demoralized at the moment.

I had hoped that we could fight ignorance with a proactive rather
than a reactive approach, but this is clearly the improper forum for
that. A quick survey of the length of threads initiated by or

drifting

to nonsense compared to the length of threads based on sound thinking
reveals the true interest in the proposal.

While it would be a useful project to contribute to the FAQ, the
intent was to educate in the context of discussion, a virtual
"classroom" if you will. There's no point in contributing to a
reference that none of the "students" will read or attempt to learn
from. The intention was to focus on *exactly* what is wrong in
someone's thinking (which varies from person to person), set it
straight, and then make progress from there.

I had high hopes -- really -- that perhaps one misguided soul would
read something sensible and say, "Oh... Really?...Oh. I see I was
confused. OK, I get it now. Now what about...?" My head knew better,
my heart does not.

[sitting in the duck blind, waiting with a shotgun for a duck to
appear]
PD
========================
or this?

========================
Draper:
Androcles, in your case, I will get over my disenchantment.

But I want this to be a fruitful exchange between the two of us, so
let's agree on some ground rules. We'll go things one little step

at a

time. When we get to a point of conflict, we'll identify what the
error is on either side, and the party in error MUST acknowledge

the

error and remove the erroneous statement from further discussion.
=========================

Androcles:

I'll agree to your terms.
My terms:
Either one of us could inadvertantly make a typographical error
or simple arithmetic error, and should correct it if noticed.
I'd require: the error to be acknowledged and corrected; the
discussion continued until I have convince you or you have
convinced me. Failing to respond in a reasonable time
is a Pyrrhic victory and unsatisfactory. The penalty for failing
to respond is to be hounded by me at any time I choose.
==========================

Then you caved in and ran away, and here you are back again, after
all the work I did, with not so much as a
"party in error MUST acknowledge the error" or a
"Oh... Really?...Oh. I see I was confused. OK, I get it now."

Google remembers it very well.

You are a coward, Draper, and you do not mean the words you say.
That makes you a disingenuous coward.
Nobody can trust you.
Androcles
.

User: "PD"
Title: Re: Doppler shift is evidence for varying speed of light.	11 Aug 2005 03:30:46 PM

Androcles wrote:

"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1123791673.530011.36190@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
|

drifting

at a

time. When we get to a point of conflict, we'll identify what the
error is on either side, and the party in error MUST acknowledge

the

You are a coward, Draper, and you do not mean the words you say.
That makes you a disingenuous coward.
Nobody can trust you.
Androcles

See? You said something interesting, and I responded to it, but you
still have all that foam on your lips.
PD
.

User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org"
Title: Re: Doppler shift is evidence for varying speed of light.	11 Aug 2005 03:40:09 PM

"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1123792246.529785.103060@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
|
| Androcles wrote:
| > "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:1123791673.530011.36190@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| > |
| > >> Draper:
| > >> I have to admit that I am demoralized at the moment.
| > >>
| > >> I had hoped that we could fight ignorance with a proactive rather
| > >> than a reactive approach, but this is clearly the improper forum
for
| > >> that. A quick survey of the length of threads initiated by or
| > > drifting
| > >> to nonsense compared to the length of threads based on sound
thinking
| > >> reveals the true interest in the proposal.
| > >>
| > >> While it would be a useful project to contribute to the FAQ, the
| > >> intent was to educate in the context of discussion, a virtual
| > >> "classroom" if you will. There's no point in contributing to a
| > >> reference that none of the "students" will read or attempt to
learn
| > >> from. The intention was to focus on *exactly* what is wrong in
| > >> someone's thinking (which varies from person to person), set it
| > >> straight, and then make progress from there.
| > >>
| > >> I had high hopes -- really -- that perhaps one misguided soul
would
| > >> read something sensible and say, "Oh... Really?...Oh. I see I was
| > >> confused. OK, I get it now. Now what about...?" My head knew
better,
| > >> my heart does not.
| > >>
| > >> [sitting in the duck blind, waiting with a shotgun for a duck to
| > >> appear]
| > >> PD
| > >> ========================
| > >> or this?
| > >>
| > >> ========================
| > >> Draper:
| > >> Androcles, in your case, I will get over my disenchantment.
| > >>
| > >> But I want this to be a fruitful exchange between the two of us,
so
| > >> let's agree on some ground rules. We'll go things one little
step
| > > at a
| > >> time. When we get to a point of conflict, we'll identify what
the
| > >> error is on either side, and the party in error MUST acknowledge
| > > the
| > >> error and remove the erroneous statement from further
discussion.
| > >> =========================
| > >>
| > >> Androcles:
| > >>
| > >> I'll agree to your terms.
| > >> My terms:
| > >> Either one of us could inadvertantly make a typographical error
| > >> or simple arithmetic error, and should correct it if noticed.
| > >> I'd require: the error to be acknowledged and corrected; the
| > >> discussion continued until I have convince you or you have
| > >> convinced me. Failing to respond in a reasonable time
| > >> is a Pyrrhic victory and unsatisfactory. The penalty for failing
| > >> to respond is to be hounded by me at any time I choose.
| > >> ==========================
| > >>
| > >> Then you caved in and ran away, and here you are back again,
after
| > >> all the work I did, with not so much as a
| > >> "party in error MUST acknowledge the error" or a
| > >> "Oh... Really?...Oh. I see I was confused. OK, I get it now."
| > >>
| > >> Google remembers it very well.
| >
| > You are a coward, Draper, and you do not mean the words you say.
| > That makes you a disingenuous coward.
| > Nobody can trust you.
| > Androcles
|
| See? You said something interesting, and I responded to it, but you
| still have all that foam on your lips.
|
| PD
Nobody can trust you.
Androcles
.

User: "PD"
Title: Re: Doppler shift is evidence for varying speed of light.	11 Aug 2005 03:56:35 PM

Androcles wrote:
[snip]

|
| See? You said something interesting, and I responded to it, but you
| still have all that foam on your lips.
|
| PD
Nobody can trust you.
Androcles

Speak for yourself, Androcles, speak for yourself.
Don't go to bed mad, now.
PD
.

User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org"
Title: Re: Doppler shift is evidence for varying speed of light.	11 Aug 2005 04:42:38 PM

"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1123793795.325186.120860@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|
| Androcles wrote:
| [snip]
| > |
| > | See? You said something interesting, and I responded to it, but
you
| > | still have all that foam on your lips.
| > |
| > | PD
| > Nobody can trust you.
| > Androcles
|
| Speak for yourself, Androcles, speak for yourself.
| Don't go to bed mad, now.
|
| PD
You want something interesting?
http://www.siprep.org/faculty/dann/Muon%20Exp/muon%20exp_t_rel.pdf
"One of the consequences of special relativity is that moving clocks run
slower. When dealing with relativity one needs to be careful about the
words used to describe physical phenomena. Suppose a particle physicist
in S(lab frame), sees the birth (Event 1) and death (Event 2) of a muon
moving at 0.994 c. The physicist measures the time interval (t2�t1)
between these events using two di�erent stationary clocks positioned
accordingly at x1and x2. Let's imagine ..."
Let's stop there.
This is a paper. What do I find? "Let's imagine..." Suppose..."
Let's not imagine, let's SAY the MEASURED distance moved is 100km,
upper atmosphere to ground.
Let's not imagine, let's SAY the MEASURED lifetime of the muon
is 2.2 microceconds.
Let's use the simplest algebra we can. v =x/t. We can even use v =xi/tau
if you like.
100000/0.0000022 =~ 150c.
That's the real speed of the muon.
Done. End of story. Finis.
Along comes a dumb relativist, sticks a scintillator in the path of the
muon,
"The speed of cosmic-ray muons was determined by measuring the di�erence
in the median time of �ights between plastic scintillator paddles."
robs it of all its energy and then says "Oh look, the speed of the muon
is
less than c, just like my tin god said it would be. Let's do some
supposing
and imagining and we'll make it fit SR" .
There is no need to measure the velocity of traffic with a toll booth or
the speed
of a muon with a scintillator. We already know the speed, it's 151c.
SR is disproven, and cannot be patched up with "suppose" and "imagine"
or Harry Einstein Potter's magical wishful thinking.
Draper: "Oh... Really?...
Androcles: Yes, fucking really!
Draper: Oh. I don't see I was confused. I'm smart, so I can't be.
Androcles: Yes, you were confused and taken in by a master huckster.
Draper: OK, I get it now.
Androcles: No you don't. You have no idea how the trick is done,
right on the stage in front of you. Einstein was the best magician
there ever was. He knows you WANT to believe. Stage magicians
want applause and they want money. I know what Einstein's smoke
and mirrors are.
Isn't that interesting?
Androcles
.

User: "PD"
Title: Re: Doppler shift is evidence for varying speed of light.	12 Aug 2005 11:04:27 AM

Androcles wrote:

That's measured in the Earth frame of reference. In the muon's frame,
what is the measured distance the Earth moves toward the muon during
its lifetime.

Let's not imagine, let's SAY the MEASURED lifetime of the muon
is 2.2 microceconds.

That's measured in the muon frame of reference. In the Earth's frame,
what is the measured lifetime of the muon.
(You see, you're making the mistake of thinking that the lifetime of a
muon is somehow an inherent property of the muon that you can quote
independent of a reference frame.)

Let's use the simplest algebra we can. v =3Dx/t. We can even use v =3Dxi/=

tau

if you like.
100000/0.0000022 =3D~ 150c.
That's the real speed of the muon.
Done. End of story. Finis.

Whoops. There's a boo-boo there. But that won't really hit home until
we read on...

Along comes a dumb relativist, sticks a scintillator in the path of the
muon,
"The speed of cosmic-ray muons was determined by measuring the di=AEerence

in the median time of =B0ights between plastic scintillator paddles."

robs it of all its energy and then says "Oh look, the speed of the muon
is
less than c, just like my tin god said it would be. Let's do some
supposing
and imagining and we'll make it fit SR" .
There is no need to measure the velocity of traffic with a toll booth or
the speed
of a muon with a scintillator. We already know the speed, it's 151c.

And you don't find it the *least bit* odd that the *same* paddles would
reduce a 151c muon to just a hair under 1c, a 30c muon to just a hair
under 1c, a 1.2c muon to just a hair under 1c, a 1359c muon to just a
hair under 1c? How do those paddles do it, removing all but just under
1c worth of speed regardless of what the initial speed is, over an
enormous range?
And you don't find it the *least bit* odd that another experimenter can
make the same measurement with paddles that are three times as thick,
and it's *still* true that a 151c muon gets slowed to just a hair under
1c?
Wouldn't all this oddity make you think that there must be something
wrong with a c+v model that predicts a 151c muon?

SR is disproven, and cannot be patched up with "suppose" and "imagine"
or Harry Einstein Potter's magical wishful thinking.

Draper: "Oh... Really?...

Androcles: Yes, fucking really!

Draper: Wow! *Really, really?*

Draper: Oh. I don't see I was confused. I'm smart, so I can't be.

Androcles: Yes, you were confused and taken in by a master huckster.

Draper: OK, I get it now.

Draper: Whoops, no I guess I don't.

Androcles: No you don't. You have no idea how the trick is done,
right on the stage in front of you. Einstein was the best magician
there ever was. He knows you WANT to believe. Stage magicians
want applause and they want money. I know what Einstein's smoke
and mirrors are.
Isn't that interesting?

Androcles

It *was* interesting. Didn't hold together for very long, but it was
interesting for a sec.
PD
.

User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org"
Title: Re: Doppler shift is evidence for varying speed of light.	12 Aug 2005 01:47:44 PM

"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1123862667.208139.124090@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Androcles wrote:

That's measured in the Earth frame of reference. In the muon's frame,
what is the measured distance the Earth moves toward the muon during
its lifetime.

Let's not imagine, let's SAY the MEASURED lifetime of the muon
is 2.2 microceconds.

Let's use the simplest algebra we can. v =x/t. We can even use v
=xi/tau
if you like.
100000/0.0000022 =~ 150c.
That's the real speed of the muon.
Done. End of story. Finis.

Whoops. There's a boo-boo there. But that won't really hit home until
we read on...

Along comes a dumb relativist, sticks a scintillator in the path of
the
muon,
"The speed of cosmic-ray muons was determined by measuring the
di�erence

in the median time of �ights between plastic scintillator paddles."

robs it of all its energy and then says "Oh look, the speed of the
muon
is
less than c, just like my tin god said it would be. Let's do some
supposing
and imagining and we'll make it fit SR" .
There is no need to measure the velocity of traffic with a toll booth
or
the speed
of a muon with a scintillator. We already know the speed, it's 151c.

And you don't find it the *least bit* odd that the *same* paddles would
reduce a 151c muon to just a hair under 1c, a 30c muon to just a hair
under 1c, a 1.2c muon to just a hair under 1c, a 1359c muon to just a
hair under 1c?
Not the slightest bit odd. Glass or diamond does the same to light.
The only thing odd is a human's insistence that because they know
it all, Einstein said so, there is no need to research such phenomena.
How do those paddles do it, removing all but just under
1c worth of speed regardless of what the initial speed is, over an
enormous range?
A SCIENTIST would want to know why, of course. Relativists
aren't scientists, though. The think that because Einstein said
[quote]
we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A.
[end quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
and then wrapped some idiotic math around it he must
be right, so whatever they do, it must agree with their religion.
| And you don't find it the *least bit* odd that another experimenter
can
| make the same measurement with paddles that are three times as thick,
| and it's *still* true that a 151c muon gets slowed to just a hair
under
| 1c?
That's right. But this "experimenter" measures the speed without two
paddles. He only needs a ruler and the life of the muon.
| Wouldn't all this oddity make you think that there must be something
| wrong with a c+v model that predicts a 151c muon?
There was nothing wrong with c+v when Einstein wrote
� [tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
the only thing wrong is that he put � in front, made x' infinitessimally
small, differentiated it and then integrated it as if he knew what he
was
doing. Then he "forgot" to write
tau = t* sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
in a perspicuous form, preferring instead to multiply numerator and
denominator by sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) to give
tau = t* (1-v^2/c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
then evaluate the numerator
tau =[ t- tv^2/c^2] / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
and since vt = x,
tau =[ t- vx/c^2] / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
which is the nonsense you are familar with.
However, speed is x'/t and
xi = x'/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) because xi = x-vt, independent of time
and
tau = t * sqrt(1 -v^2/c^2),
so
xi/tau = x/t * sqrt(1 -v^2/c^2)/sqrt(1 -v^2/c^2) = 151c.
and your magic math can't help in the slightest.

SR is disproven, and cannot be patched up with "suppose" and "imagine"
or Harry Einstein Potter's magical wishful thinking.

Draper: "Oh... Really?...

Androcles: Yes, fucking really!

Draper: Wow! *Really, really?*
Yes, fucking really really!

Draper: Oh. I don't see I was confused. I'm smart, so I can't be.

Androcles: Yes, you were confused and taken in by a master huckster.

Draper: OK, I get it now.

Draper: Whoops, no I guess I don't.
No, I didn't think someone of low intelligence would, but I had to try.

It *was* interesting. Didn't hold together for very long, but it was
interesting for a sec.
PD
Don't be silly, the cuckoo transformations have held up for 100 years.
xi/tau = 150c for a muon, or they are not equal to v
Androcles.
.

User: "Randy Poe"
Title: Re: Doppler shift is evidence for varying speed of light.	12 Aug 2005 02:38:30 PM

Androcles wrote:

"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1123862667.208139.124090@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Not the slightest bit odd. Glass or diamond does the same to light.
The only thing odd is a human's insistence that because they know
it all, Einstein said so, there is no need to research such phenomena.

How do those paddles do it, removing all but just under
1c worth of speed regardless of what the initial speed is, over an
enormous range?

A further mystery is how these substances manage not to be
constrained by Snell's law, but instead obey
sin(angle of refraction)/sin(angle of incidence)
= c1/c
(where c1 = speed of light in material)
rather than what you'd expect from Huygen's principle:
sin(angle of refraction)/sin(angle of incidence)
= c1/v
(where v = actual speed of incoming light)
- Randy
.

User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org"
Title: Re: Doppler shift is evidence for varying speed of light.	12 Aug 2005 04:36:05 PM

"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1123875510.672228.190960@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|
| Androcles wrote:
| > "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:1123862667.208139.124090@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| >> And you don't find it the *least bit* odd that the *same* paddles
would
| >> reduce a 151c muon to just a hair under 1c, a 30c muon to just a
hair
| >> under 1c, a 1.2c muon to just a hair under 1c, a 1359c muon to just
a
| >> hair under 1c?
| >>
| > Not the slightest bit odd. Glass or diamond does the same to light.
| > The only thing odd is a human's insistence that because they know
| > it all, Einstein said so, there is no need to research such
phenomena.
| >
| > How do those paddles do it, removing all but just under
| > 1c worth of speed regardless of what the initial speed is, over an
| > enormous range?
|
| A further mystery is how these substances manage not to be
| constrained by Snell's law, but instead obey
|
| sin(angle of refraction)/sin(angle of incidence)
| = c1/c
|
| (where c1 = speed of light in material)
|
| rather than what you'd expect from Huygen's principle:
|
| sin(angle of refraction)/sin(angle of incidence)
| = c1/v
|
| (where v = actual speed of incoming light)
|
| - Randy
Point taken, but the thread title is "Doppler shift is evidence
for a varying speed of light" and you may have noticed you
obtain a spectrum from an incident white light ray.
One of Newton's experiments was to place a second prism
in the path of the refracted ray, and no further colour is found.
The implication is....what?
Androcles.

.

User: "Randy Poe"
Title: Re: Doppler shift is evidence for varying speed of light.	12 Aug 2005 04:46:16 PM

Androcles wrote:

Point taken, but the thread title is "Doppler shift is evidence
for a varying speed of light" and you may have noticed you
obtain a spectrum from an incident white light ray.
One of Newton's experiments was to place a second prism
in the path of the refracted ray, and no further colour is found.
The implication is....what?

1. That speed in glass is wavelength dependent, and that
white light contains multiple wavelengths.
2. That a refracted ray of a given color is monochromatic.
Did you have something more mysterious in mind?
- Randy
.

User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org"
Title: Re: Doppler shift is evidence for varying speed of light.	12 Aug 2005 05:11:21 PM

"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1123883176.661429.285680@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
|
| Androcles wrote:
| > Point taken, but the thread title is "Doppler shift is evidence
| > for a varying speed of light" and you may have noticed you
| > obtain a spectrum from an incident white light ray.
| > One of Newton's experiments was to place a second prism
| > in the path of the refracted ray, and no further colour is found.
| > The implication is....what?
|
| 1. That speed in glass is wavelength dependent, and that
| white light contains multiple wavelengths.
I thought you'd just said something about speed and angle.
I see you've snipped it.
| 2. That a refracted ray of a given color is monochromatic.
Yes well, Santa Claus is Father Chistmas and monochromatic
light is light of a given color.
| Did you have something more mysterious in mind?
| - Randy
There is nothing mysterious about light of a given wavelength
having a different velocity to light of another wavelength and
having a different refraction angle, is there?
No, I didn't have anything mysterious in mind.
Androcles
.

User: "Randy Poe"
Title: Re: Doppler shift is evidence for varying speed of light.	12 Aug 2005 05:22:14 PM

Androcles wrote:

Snell's law. I don't see that it bears repeating.

| 2. That a refracted ray of a given color is monochromatic.

Yes well, Santa Claus is Father Chistmas and monochromatic
light is light of a given color.

| Did you have something more mysterious in mind?

There is nothing mysterious about light of a given wavelength
having a different velocity to light of another wavelength

.... in a medium ....

and having a different refraction angle, is there?

No. Snell's law again.
If you were trying to make a point, if this was supposed
to be pointing out something ridiculous, contradictory,
or problematic for relativity in what I said, I must
admit it completely escapes me.
- Randy
.

User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org"
Title: Re: Doppler shift is evidence for varying speed of light.	12 Aug 2005 05:31:59 PM

User: "PD"
Title: Re: Doppler shift is evidence for varying speed of light.	12 Aug 2005 02:20:10 PM

Androcles wrote:
Somehow, Androcles, your attribution flags got all confoofled here, so
we'll have to be careful to remember who said what.

"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1123862667.208139.124090@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Androcles wrote:

PD: That's measured in the Earth frame of reference. In the muon's frame,
what is the measured distance the Earth moves toward the muon during
its lifetime?

Let's not imagine, let's SAY the MEASURED lifetime of the muon
is 2.2 microceconds.

PD: That's measured in the muon frame of reference. In the Earth's frame,
what is the measured lifetime of the muon?

PD: (You see, you're making the mistake of thinking that the lifetime of =
a
muon is somehow an inherent property of the muon that you can quote
independent of a reference frame.)

Let's use the simplest algebra we can. v =3Dx/t. We can even use v
=3Dxi/tau
if you like.
100000/0.0000022 =3D~ 150c.
That's the real speed of the muon.
Done. End of story. Finis.

Whoops. There's a boo-boo there. But that won't really hit home until
we read on...

Along comes a dumb relativist, sticks a scintillator in the path of
the
muon,
"The speed of cosmic-ray muons was determined by measuring the
di=AEerence

in the median time of =B0ights between plastic scintillator paddles."

robs it of all its energy and then says "Oh look, the speed of the
muon
is
less than c, just like my tin god said it would be. Let's do some
supposing
and imagining and we'll make it fit SR" .
There is no need to measure the velocity of traffic with a toll booth
or
the speed
of a muon with a scintillator. We already know the speed, it's 151c.

PD: And you don't find it the *least bit* odd that the *same* paddles
would
reduce a 151c muon to just a hair under 1c, a 30c muon to just a hair
under 1c, a 1.2c muon to just a hair under 1c, a 1359c muon to just a
hair under 1c?

Androcles: Not the slightest bit odd.
Glass or diamond does the same to light.

It does? Glass or diamond has a speed-dependent index of refraction,
and so it slows light that's going at 151c down to 2/3c, and it also
slows light that's going at 30c down to 2/3c? Wouldn't that make the
refractive power of a glass lens dependent on the speed of the light
coming into the lens? So for a star that is approaching the telescope
at 0.8c, its light would be focused at a different focal point than
light from a star receding from the telescope at 0.8c? You don't see a
problem with that assertion?

Androcles: The only thing odd is a human's insistence that because they
know
it all, Einstein said so, there is no need to research such phenomena.

PD: How do those paddles do it, removing all but just under
1c worth of speed regardless of what the initial speed is, over an
enormous range?

Androcles: A SCIENTIST would want to know why, of course. Relativists
aren't scientists, though.

I see! So you would *much* rather be faced with the small physics
problem of how a single scintillator paddle 1 cm thick can slow both a
muon going 151c and a muon going 3195c to just under 1c, and how a
scintillator paddle that is 5 cm thick can conspire to slow the muons
down by the *exact same amount*, than it would be to wrestle with the
ridiculous claims by Einstein that
a) the laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference frames;
b) the speed of light is constant in all inertial reference frames.
Have I got that right? I just want to be sure.

Androcles: The think that because Einstein said
[quote