| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" |
| Date: |
03 Feb 2005 12:07:41 AM |
| Object: |
GPS vs. Source Dependency |
Myxo had it basically right last September, and Androclown was as usual
clueless.
I track Myxo's figures for radial velocity of GPS satellites at the
horizon, but they're off by a factor of 2, due to assuming the Earth
doesn't rotate. Since it does, the effective period of the GPS relative
to the observer is 24 hours not 12, therefore the maximal radial
velocity is only half what Myxo gives.
Let r be the radius of the Earth, and R the radius of the GPS orbit,
which is about 4.1 r. Then the azimuthal angle phi from true
horizontal when the GPS is at the horizon is:
phi = arctan r/R = arctan 1/4.1 = 13.7 degrees, as you say.
From the law of cosines, where x is the distance from observer to
satellite:
x^2 = r^2 + R^2 - 2R cos (theta) where theta is the compliment of phi,
or the angle to the satellite from the vertical. At the horizon it's 90
- 13.7 = 76.3 degrees
We would like to know what dx/d(theta) is, where theta is the vertical
angle to a satellite on the horizon. If we differentiate the
expression for x with regard to theta and put in theta = 90-arctan r/R,
we find something really interesting, which is that dx/d(theta) at that
horizon value of theta is exactly r per radian. It's independent of
the value of R! If R were smaller, the vertical angle we'd have to
work with at the horizon would decrease, and we'd end up with the same
answer. This is cute. The maximal radial velocity depends only on the
radius of the earth, and the period. Of course, for real satellites
the period is a function of the satellite radius.
Anyway, if we know the period, it goes like this:
dr/dt = maximal radial speed = dr/d(theta) * d(theta)/dt
Here dr/d(theta) = r/radian and d(theta)/dt = 2pi radians per 24 hours
(again remember we have to use the apparent period, not the real one of
12 hours)
This works out to r * (2pi/24*60*60) = 4e7 m / (86,400) = 463 m/sec.
Note that we didn't use the GPS satellite's distance. All we needed to
know at this point was its effective period. This is correct to the
digits given, at least. The earth's circumference is very close to 4e7
m because that's how the meter was originally defined.
Sicne 463 m/sec is 1.54 parts per million of the speed of c, that would
put quite the kibosh on a GPS satellite receiver that is supposed to
find its place in a horizontal plane to better than 1 part in 10
million (easily 2.6 meters from satellites 2.6 e7 meters away), by
timing one-way signal propagation delay.
SBH
.
|
|
| User: "Tom Capizzi" |
|
| Title: Re: GPS vs. Source Dependency |
03 Feb 2005 04:09:47 AM |
|
|
"Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:1107410861.590753.54380@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Myxo had it basically right last September, and Androclown was as usual
clueless.
I track Myxo's figures for radial velocity of GPS satellites at the
horizon, but they're off by a factor of 2, due to assuming the Earth
doesn't rotate. Since it does, the effective period of the GPS relative
to the observer is 24 hours not 12, therefore the maximal radial
velocity is only half what Myxo gives.
Let r be the radius of the Earth, and R the radius of the GPS orbit,
which is about 4.1 r. Then the azimuthal angle phi from true
horizontal when the GPS is at the horizon is:
phi = arctan r/R = arctan 1/4.1 = 13.7 degrees, as you say.
From the law of cosines, where x is the distance from observer to
satellite:
x^2 = r^2 + R^2 - 2R cos (theta) where theta is the compliment of phi,
or the angle to the satellite from the vertical. At the horizon it's 90
- 13.7 = 76.3 degrees
We would like to know what dx/d(theta) is, where theta is the vertical
angle to a satellite on the horizon. If we differentiate the
expression for x with regard to theta and put in theta = 90-arctan r/R,
we find something really interesting, which is that dx/d(theta) at that
horizon value of theta is exactly r per radian. It's independent of
the value of R! If R were smaller, the vertical angle we'd have to
work with at the horizon would decrease, and we'd end up with the same
answer. This is cute. The maximal radial velocity depends only on the
radius of the earth, and the period. Of course, for real satellites
the period is a function of the satellite radius.
Anyway, if we know the period, it goes like this:
dr/dt = maximal radial speed = dr/d(theta) * d(theta)/dt
Here dr/d(theta) = r/radian and d(theta)/dt = 2pi radians per 24 hours
(again remember we have to use the apparent period, not the real one of
12 hours)
This works out to r * (2pi/24*60*60) = 4e7 m / (86,400) = 463 m/sec.
If r is the radius of the earth, the figure above can be regrouped as
(2 pi *r) / (24 * 60 * 60). The numerator is just the circumference of a
circle, such as the equator. The denominator is the number of seconds
in one day. So the velocity calculated in this manner is essentially the
speed of a point on the equator itself.
According to the GPS specs, they are actually travelling around
7000 mph. This is more than 3000 m/sec. or roughly 8 times the figure
above. This is consistent with an orbit that is 4.1 times longer, and
a period that is about half a day.
Note that we didn't use the GPS satellite's distance. All we needed to
know at this point was its effective period. This is correct to the
digits given, at least. The earth's circumference is very close to 4e7
m because that's how the meter was originally defined.
Sicne 463 m/sec is 1.54 parts per million of the speed of c, that would
put quite the kibosh on a GPS satellite receiver that is supposed to
find its place in a horizontal plane to better than 1 part in 10
million (easily 2.6 meters from satellites 2.6 e7 meters away), by
timing one-way signal propagation delay.
SBH
I'm not sure what your point is here. Total travel time is not sufficient
to locate position. It takes 3 or 4 separate signals to triangulate a
location. Then it is not so much total travel time from the satellite, but
a comparison of the different times. In any case, the satellite velocity
is off by almost an order of magnitude. What are you claiming this has
to do with GPS accuracy?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" |
|
| Title: Re: GPS vs. Source Dependency |
03 Feb 2005 03:37:11 PM |
|
|
It is the speed of the equator itself, but that's a coincidence. If the
earth weren't rotating at all, you'd plug 12 hours into the period, and
the radial velocity of the GPS satellite would be twice as large.
This is NOT the ORBITAL velocity, which of course is 3.9 kps with
regard to a non-rotating Earth, and 0.46 kps less than that with regard
to the ground. What we're talking about is the vector component of the
orbital velocity toward and away from the ground observer, which is
zero when the satellite is overhead, and maximally about 0.46 kps
toward or away from the observer depending on whether the satellite
(moving retrograde to the Sun and Moon) is just rising on the W horizon
(coming toward the observer) or just sinking in the E (going away).
The relevence is to the discussion with anti-relativity people who
think radio signals from moving objects in vacuum somehow gain the
relative velocity v, and emerge at c+v or c-v.
Yes, GPS is a triangulation of times-of-flight, since if you know the
time of signal flight t from one satellite you only know you're on the
surface of a particular sphere of radius ct, and 2 puts you on a
circle, 3 gives you 2 points on the circle, and 4 nails you. But if the
satellites are all moving toward or away from you by some good fraction
c, as compared with the accuracy of the time of flight you need to
measure, it screws even triangulation distances like this up
completely. My point is, that it doesn't. Nobody uses t(c+v) for the
distance to some satellite moving toward you at radial vector velocity
v.
GPS works, and no correction is used for the direct radial velocity of
the satellites toward or away from ground observers.
SBH
.
|
|
|
| User: "John C. Polasek" |
|
| Title: Re: GPS vs. Source Dependency |
03 Feb 2005 07:14:12 PM |
|
|
On 3 Feb 2005 13:37:11 -0800, "Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com"
<sbharris@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
It is the speed of the equator itself, but that's a coincidence. If the
earth weren't rotating at all, you'd plug 12 hours into the period, and
the radial velocity of the GPS satellite would be twice as large.
This is NOT the ORBITAL velocity, which of course is 3.9 kps with
regard to a non-rotating Earth, and 0.46 kps less than that with regard
to the ground. What we're talking about is the vector component of the
orbital velocity toward and away from the ground observer, which is
zero when the satellite is overhead, and maximally about 0.46 kps
toward or away from the observer depending on whether the satellite
(moving retrograde to the Sun and Moon) is just rising on the W horizon
(coming toward the observer) or just sinking in the E (going away).
The relevence is to the discussion with anti-relativity people who
think radio signals from moving objects in vacuum somehow gain the
relative velocity v, and emerge at c+v or c-v.
Yes, GPS is a triangulation of times-of-flight, since if you know the
time of signal flight t from one satellite you only know you're on the
surface of a particular sphere of radius ct, and 2 puts you on a
circle, 3 gives you 2 points on the circle, and 4 nails you. But if the
satellites are all moving toward or away from you by some good fraction
c, as compared with the accuracy of the time of flight you need to
measure, it screws even triangulation distances like this up
completely. My point is, that it doesn't. Nobody uses t(c+v) for the
distance to some satellite moving toward you at radial vector velocity
v.
GPS works, and no correction is used for the direct radial velocity of
the satellites toward or away from ground observers.
SBH
The only way to be sure of what you're doing is to take each velocity
and gravity vs infinity, and then net them out. I did that in my
gravity paper you can see at http://dualspace.net. Also shown there is
the relativistic where the effects are combined in a cryptic quotient.
John Polasek
If you have something to say write an equation.
If you have nothing to say, write an essay.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: GPS vs. Source Dependency |
08 Feb 2005 02:41:55 PM |
|
|
On 3 Feb 2005 13:37:11 -0800, "Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com"
<sbharris@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
It is the speed of the equator itself, but that's a coincidence. If the
earth weren't rotating at all, you'd plug 12 hours into the period, and
the radial velocity of the GPS satellite would be twice as large.
This is NOT the ORBITAL velocity, which of course is 3.9 kps with
regard to a non-rotating Earth, and 0.46 kps less than that with regard
to the ground. What we're talking about is the vector component of the
orbital velocity toward and away from the ground observer, which is
zero when the satellite is overhead, and maximally about 0.46 kps
toward or away from the observer depending on whether the satellite
(moving retrograde to the Sun and Moon) is just rising on the W horizon
(coming toward the observer) or just sinking in the E (going away).
The relevence is to the discussion with anti-relativity people who
think radio signals from moving objects in vacuum somehow gain the
relative velocity v, and emerge at c+v or c-v.
Yes, GPS is a triangulation of times-of-flight, since if you know the
time of signal flight t from one satellite you only know you're on the
surface of a particular sphere of radius ct, and 2 puts you on a
circle, 3 gives you 2 points on the circle, and 4 nails you. But if the
satellites are all moving toward or away from you by some good fraction
c, as compared with the accuracy of the time of flight you need to
measure, it screws even triangulation distances like this up
completely. My point is, that it doesn't. Nobody uses t(c+v) for the
distance to some satellite moving toward you at radial vector velocity
v.
GPS works, and no correction is used for the direct radial velocity of
the satellites toward or away from ground observers.
That is not true.
GPS assumes constant c but then corrects for doppler phase shift. Same result
as using c+v, really.
SBH
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Capizzi" |
|
| Title: Re: GPS vs. Source Dependency |
09 Feb 2005 08:50:47 AM |
|
|
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
news:nt8i01137vjdetil9vrenfhqengbik6dgu@4ax.com...
On 3 Feb 2005 13:37:11 -0800, "Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com"
<sbharris@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
It is the speed of the equator itself, but that's a coincidence. If the
earth weren't rotating at all, you'd plug 12 hours into the period, and
the radial velocity of the GPS satellite would be twice as large.
This is NOT the ORBITAL velocity, which of course is 3.9 kps with
regard to a non-rotating Earth, and 0.46 kps less than that with regard
to the ground. What we're talking about is the vector component of the
orbital velocity toward and away from the ground observer, which is
zero when the satellite is overhead, and maximally about 0.46 kps
toward or away from the observer depending on whether the satellite
(moving retrograde to the Sun and Moon) is just rising on the W horizon
(coming toward the observer) or just sinking in the E (going away).
The relevence is to the discussion with anti-relativity people who
think radio signals from moving objects in vacuum somehow gain the
relative velocity v, and emerge at c+v or c-v.
Yes, GPS is a triangulation of times-of-flight, since if you know the
time of signal flight t from one satellite you only know you're on the
surface of a particular sphere of radius ct, and 2 puts you on a
circle, 3 gives you 2 points on the circle, and 4 nails you. But if the
satellites are all moving toward or away from you by some good fraction
c, as compared with the accuracy of the time of flight you need to
measure, it screws even triangulation distances like this up
completely. My point is, that it doesn't. Nobody uses t(c+v) for the
distance to some satellite moving toward you at radial vector velocity
v.
GPS works, and no correction is used for the direct radial velocity of
the satellites toward or away from ground observers.
That is not true.
GPS assumes constant c but then corrects for doppler phase shift. Same
result
as using c+v, really.
So what? Even if you are telling the truth (not necessarily guaranteed) it
only
means that the formulae involved agree in one particular application. It
would
not prove that light speed is anything other than c, nor is it support for
your
tired old ballistic theory. You post so much nonsense about this that you
need
to post a reference that is credible before we can even accept your claim.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: GPS vs. Source Dependency |
09 Feb 2005 03:06:48 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 14:50:47 GMT, "Tom Capizzi" <etianshrdlu@verizon.net>
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
news:nt8i01137vjdetil9vrenfhqengbik6dgu@4ax.com...
On 3 Feb 2005 13:37:11 -0800, "Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com"
<sbharris@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
It is the speed of the equator itself, but that's a coincidence. If the
earth weren't rotating at all, you'd plug 12 hours into the period, and
the radial velocity of the GPS satellite would be twice as large.
This is NOT the ORBITAL velocity, which of course is 3.9 kps with
regard to a non-rotating Earth, and 0.46 kps less than that with regard
to the ground. What we're talking about is the vector component of the
orbital velocity toward and away from the ground observer, which is
zero when the satellite is overhead, and maximally about 0.46 kps
toward or away from the observer depending on whether the satellite
(moving retrograde to the Sun and Moon) is just rising on the W horizon
(coming toward the observer) or just sinking in the E (going away).
The relevence is to the discussion with anti-relativity people who
think radio signals from moving objects in vacuum somehow gain the
relative velocity v, and emerge at c+v or c-v.
Yes, GPS is a triangulation of times-of-flight, since if you know the
time of signal flight t from one satellite you only know you're on the
surface of a particular sphere of radius ct, and 2 puts you on a
circle, 3 gives you 2 points on the circle, and 4 nails you. But if the
satellites are all moving toward or away from you by some good fraction
c, as compared with the accuracy of the time of flight you need to
measure, it screws even triangulation distances like this up
completely. My point is, that it doesn't. Nobody uses t(c+v) for the
distance to some satellite moving toward you at radial vector velocity
v.
GPS works, and no correction is used for the direct radial velocity of
the satellites toward or away from ground observers.
That is not true.
GPS assumes constant c but then corrects for doppler phase shift. Same
result
as using c+v, really.
So what? Even if you are telling the truth (not necessarily guaranteed) it
only
means that the formulae involved agree in one particular application. It
would
not prove that light speed is anything other than c, nor is it support for
your
tired old ballistic theory.
Tom, get it into your head, SPEED IS RELATIVE.
Light moves at c relative to its source. It has no other reference.
You post so much nonsense about this that you
need
to post a reference that is credible before we can even accept your claim.
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: GPS vs. Source Dependency |
09 Feb 2005 09:00:06 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson)
<H@>
wrote
on Wed, 09 Feb 2005 21:06:48 GMT
<gouk011urkev291rpnpf5si5e9gb9o9aj4@4ax.com>:
On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 14:50:47 GMT, "Tom Capizzi" <etianshrdlu@verizon.net>
wrote:
[snipped]
Tom, get it into your head, SPEED IS RELATIVE.
Light moves at c relative to its source. It has no other reference.
Light also moves at c relative to whatever is measuring it.
Strange but true.
Any other, erm, flashes of brilliance? :-)
[rest snipped]
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: GPS vs. Source Dependency |
10 Feb 2005 05:02:06 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 03:00:06 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
<ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote:
In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson)
<H@>
wrote
on Wed, 09 Feb 2005 21:06:48 GMT
<gouk011urkev291rpnpf5si5e9gb9o9aj4@4ax.com>:
On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 14:50:47 GMT, "Tom Capizzi" <etianshrdlu@verizon.net>
wrote:
[snipped]
Tom, get it into your head, SPEED IS RELATIVE.
Light moves at c relative to its source. It has no other reference.
Light also moves at c relative to whatever is measuring it.
Strange but true.
No Ghost. The universal constant 'c' has the same value no matter who measures
it.
'c' also happens to be the speed of light wrt its source. It is NOT a measure
of OWLS generally.
Any other, erm, flashes of brilliance? :-)
I get about one every hour, Ghost.
[rest snipped]
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: GPS vs. Source Dependency |
10 Feb 2005 10:00:04 AM |
|
|
In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson)
<H@>
wrote
on Thu, 10 Feb 2005 11:02:06 GMT
<ijfm01d0fh067pumh4jrpp8kaggc8k0gih@4ax.com>:
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 03:00:06 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
<ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote:
In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson)
<H@>
wrote
on Wed, 09 Feb 2005 21:06:48 GMT
<gouk011urkev291rpnpf5si5e9gb9o9aj4@4ax.com>:
On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 14:50:47 GMT, "Tom Capizzi" <etianshrdlu@verizon.net>
wrote:
[snipped]
Tom, get it into your head, SPEED IS RELATIVE.
Light moves at c relative to its source. It has no other reference.
Light also moves at c relative to whatever is measuring it.
Strange but true.
No Ghost. The universal constant 'c' has the same value
no matter who measures it. 'c' also happens to be the
speed of light wrt its source. It is NOT a measure
of OWLS generally.
So why do no scientists assume c' = c+v here?
Why are accelerators designed to compensate for the SR
mass gain?
Any other, erm, flashes of brilliance? :-)
I get about one every hour, Ghost.
Really?
Which star system?
[rest snipped]
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: GPS vs. Source Dependency |
10 Feb 2005 03:55:28 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 16:00:04 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
<ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote:
In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson)
<H@>
wrote
on Thu, 10 Feb 2005 11:02:06 GMT
<ijfm01d0fh067pumh4jrpp8kaggc8k0gih@4ax.com>:
Tom, get it into your head, SPEED IS RELATIVE.
Light moves at c relative to its source. It has no other reference.
Light also moves at c relative to whatever is measuring it.
Strange but true.
No Ghost. The universal constant 'c' has the same value
no matter who measures it. 'c' also happens to be the
speed of light wrt its source. It is NOT a measure
of OWLS generally.
So why do no scientists assume c' = c+v here?
Why are accelerators designed to compensate for the SR
mass gain?
There are more things in heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy
Horatio!
What is MASS, Ghost?
Any other, erm, flashes of brilliance? :-)
I get about one every hour, Ghost.
Really?
Which star system?
A binary obviously.
[rest snipped]
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Kennaugh" |
|
| Title: Re: GPS vs. Source Dependency |
19 Feb 2005 04:11:35 AM |
|
|
The Ghost In The Machine writes
In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson)
<H@>
wrote
on Wed, 09 Feb 2005 21:06:48 GMT
<gouk011urkev291rpnpf5si5e9gb9o9aj4@4ax.com>:
On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 14:50:47 GMT, "Tom Capizzi" <etianshrdlu@verizon.net>
wrote:
[snipped]
Tom, get it into your head, SPEED IS RELATIVE.
Light moves at c relative to its source. It has no other reference.
Light also moves at c relative to whatever is measuring it.
Strange but true.
Absurd rather than 'strange' and not necessarily true. How can one
produce any credible causality which puts the observer in the driving
seat? Does the observer attract light towards himself at c? If so it
requires not only action-at-a-distance over vast distances but also back
through time. Maybe the light source knows who is going to observe it
and when. That rather puts god in the driving seat of every light
source.
Maybe you should ask where this dogma came from. I give you Einstein's
own explanation:
"Light is a propagated wave propagated by a medium called the Aether.
The velocity of a wave is a function of the medium which propagates it
and its velocity can only be effected by the source if the movement of
the source causes movement of the medium. Aether drag experiments,
passing light close to heavy rotating flywheels has shown that they had
no effect on the light passing close to them hence the speed of light
cannot be effected by the speed of the source.
Although the speed of light might be expected to vary with the speed
of the observer Michelson and Morley had shown that not to be the case
so it is a strange but indisputable fact that the velocity of light is
constant independent of the velocity of the source or the observer."
Infeld/Einstein - The Evolution of Physics. 1938
Now if you don't believe in the aether the simplest (only logical)
explanation of MMX is that light is source dependent. The reason there
was no fringe shift was because the geometry was fixed.
Put it another way. If there is no ether for the speed of light to be
constant w.r.t then one can explain the MMX result by either assuming
the speed of light is constant w.r.t the source or that it is constant
w.r.t the observer/detector. Because the distance between observer and
detector is fixed MMX cannot say which. Now Einstein assumed that the
speed is constant w.r.t the observer. Why? The answer is because it was
generally accepted that the speed of light is independent of the source
and if it is independent of the source and it is not constant w.r.t the
ether it must be constant w.r.t the observer.
OK why was it generally accepted that it was independent of the source.
No experiment had shown it to be so. It had been believed for nearly 200
years because everyone (except a few kooks) believed that it was
constant w.r.t the ether and therefore not influenced by the source.
Lorentz tried to rescue the wave/ether theory by hypothesising
interaction between the ether and ordinary matter (expressed
mathematically as Lorentz transforms). As his theory retained the ether
concept it also assumed source independence. Einstein followed on from
Lorentz and inherited the idea of source independence which he himself
describes as 'apparently irreconcilable' with the PoR. (The PoR itself
implies source dependency and is perfectly consistent with ballistic
theory).
What Einstein did was to ditch two axioms of physics in order to
reconcile mathematically the PoR with source independence. Why? Source
independence is a property of the ether and relativists don't believe in
the ether. Relativity is not based on the PoR as it name suggests but on
a belief in source independence which comes from a belief in the ether.
The statement in the 1938 book accurately reflects this. Essentially if
a source is surrounded by nothing which can affect the speed of light
the speed of light must be constant w.r.t. the source - there isn't
anything else. Alternatively if the speed of light is not dependent upon
the source it must be dependent upon something else and that something
else must control its speed from the moment it leaves the source - so
the source must be surrounded by something which controls the speed -
traditionally called the ether. Relativity requires each observer to
have his own ether which he is stationary w.r.t.
There are only two possibilities. Either there is no ether and light is
source dependent or there is an ether in which case it isn't. You can't
get away with saying light is not propagated in the ether at c, it is
propagated in a FoR at c. A FoR is a mathematical abstraction. Every FoR
defines the same physical space and if there is no ether that physical
space can have no properties which are relevant. If the physical space
the FoR defines has no physical properties how can the mathematical
abstraction which maps it have such properties?
Face it. Relativity is based on belief in source independence. That
belief originated and was sustained for 200 years by belief in the
ether. Lorentz rescued the ether and with it source independence.
Einstein followed from Lorentz and came up with no alternative
justification for that assumption. The belief was given a boost by
DeSitters 'evidence' from double stars. It is very easy to convince
someone when it is what they want to hear but that evidence was finally
discredited in 1965. That means that for a total of 280 years everyone
had believed in source independence - originally because of a belief in
the ether - without one shred of experimental evidence now considered
credible.
The problem came with MMX. They did not bite the bullet and say 'OK lets
accept we were wrong, there is no ether, light may behave like waves but
it isn't actually waves (Planck/photoelectric affect) at a more
fundamental level it is made up of particles so doesn't need an ether
anyway. With no ether there is no justification for assuming source
independence and it is nonsense if light is particles anyway'
The only credible evidence I am aware of comes from experiments done at
CERN in the 1960s. There is just as much evidence to the contrary if
you look for it. OTOH Far too many reputations are at stake to allow any
serious objectivity on the matter. High status physicists are in control
of what is published and what is funded and their status would be
undermined if it turned out light is after all source dependent.
Any other, erm, flashes of brilliance? :-)
[rest snipped]
--
John Kennaugh
to email convert the number from hex to decimal
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: GPS vs. Source Dependency |
19 Feb 2005 02:34:40 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 10:11:35 +0000, John Kennaugh
<JKNG@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
The Ghost In The Machine writes
In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson)
<H@>
wrote
on Wed, 09 Feb 2005 21:06:48 GMT
<gouk011urkev291rpnpf5si5e9gb9o9aj4@4ax.com>:
On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 14:50:47 GMT, "Tom Capizzi" <etianshrdlu@verizon.net>
wrote:
[snipped]
Tom, get it into your head, SPEED IS RELATIVE.
Light moves at c relative to its source. It has no other reference.
Light also moves at c relative to whatever is measuring it.
Strange but true.
Absurd rather than 'strange' and not necessarily true. How can one
produce any credible causality which puts the observer in the driving
seat? Does the observer attract light towards himself at c? If so it
requires not only action-at-a-distance over vast distances but also back
through time. Maybe the light source knows who is going to observe it
and when. That rather puts god in the driving seat of every light
source.
Maybe you should ask where this dogma came from. I give you Einstein's
own explanation:
"Light is a propagated wave propagated by a medium called the Aether.
The velocity of a wave is a function of the medium which propagates it
and its velocity can only be effected by the source if the movement of
the source causes movement of the medium. Aether drag experiments,
passing light close to heavy rotating flywheels has shown that they had
no effect on the light passing close to them hence the speed of light
cannot be effected by the speed of the source.
Although the speed of light might be expected to vary with the speed
of the observer Michelson and Morley had shown that not to be the case
so it is a strange but indisputable fact that the velocity of light is
constant independent of the velocity of the source or the observer."
Infeld/Einstein - The Evolution of Physics. 1938
Now if you don't believe in the aether the simplest (only logical)
explanation of MMX is that light is source dependent. The reason there
was no fringe shift was because the geometry was fixed.
Put it another way. If there is no ether for the speed of light to be
constant w.r.t then one can explain the MMX result by either assuming
the speed of light is constant w.r.t the source or that it is constant
w.r.t the observer/detector. Because the distance between observer and
detector is fixed MMX cannot say which. Now Einstein assumed that the
speed is constant w.r.t the observer. Why? The answer is because it was
generally accepted that the speed of light is independent of the source
and if it is independent of the source and it is not constant w.r.t the
ether it must be constant w.r.t the observer.
OK why was it generally accepted that it was independent of the source.
No experiment had shown it to be so. It had been believed for nearly 200
years because everyone (except a few kooks) believed that it was
constant w.r.t the ether and therefore not influenced by the source.
Lorentz tried to rescue the wave/ether theory by hypothesising
interaction between the ether and ordinary matter (expressed
mathematically as Lorentz transforms). As his theory retained the ether
concept it also assumed source independence. Einstein followed on from
Lorentz and inherited the idea of source independence which he himself
describes as 'apparently irreconcilable' with the PoR. (The PoR itself
implies source dependency and is perfectly consistent with ballistic
theory).
What Einstein did was to ditch two axioms of physics in order to
reconcile mathematically the PoR with source independence. Why? Source
independence is a property of the ether and relativists don't believe in
the ether. Relativity is not based on the PoR as it name suggests but on
a belief in source independence which comes from a belief in the ether.
The statement in the 1938 book accurately reflects this. Essentially if
a source is surrounded by nothing which can affect the speed of light
the speed of light must be constant w.r.t. the source - there isn't
anything else. Alternatively if the speed of light is not dependent upon
the source it must be dependent upon something else and that something
else must control its speed from the moment it leaves the source - so
the source must be surrounded by something which controls the speed -
traditionally called the ether. Relativity requires each observer to
have his own ether which he is stationary w.r.t.
There are only two possibilities. Either there is no ether and light is
source dependent or there is an ether in which case it isn't. You can't
get away with saying light is not propagated in the ether at c, it is
propagated in a FoR at c. A FoR is a mathematical abstraction. Every FoR
defines the same physical space and if there is no ether that physical
space can have no properties which are relevant. If the physical space
the FoR defines has no physical properties how can the mathematical
abstraction which maps it have such properties?
Face it. Relativity is based on belief in source independence. That
belief originated and was sustained for 200 years by belief in the
ether. Lorentz rescued the ether and with it source independence.
Einstein followed from Lorentz and came up with no alternative
justification for that assumption. The belief was given a boost by
DeSitters 'evidence' from double stars. It is very easy to convince
someone when it is what they want to hear but that evidence was finally
discredited in 1965. That means that for a total of 280 years everyone
had believed in source independence - originally because of a belief in
the ether - without one shred of experimental evidence now considered
credible.
The problem came with MMX. They did not bite the bullet and say 'OK lets
accept we were wrong, there is no ether, light may behave like waves but
it isn't actually waves (Planck/photoelectric affect) at a more
fundamental level it is made up of particles so doesn't need an ether
anyway. With no ether there is no justification for assuming source
independence and it is nonsense if light is particles anyway'
The only credible evidence I am aware of comes from experiments done at
CERN in the 1960s. There is just as much evidence to the contrary if
you look for it. OTOH Far too many reputations are at stake to allow any
serious objectivity on the matter. High status physicists are in control
of what is published and what is funded and their status would be
undermined if it turned out light is after all source dependent.
Any other, erm, flashes of brilliance? :-)
[rest snipped]
Well said, John.
I would add that light is affected by various factors as it travels through the
near vacuum of space. Its speed can change from its original value. If and when
it reaches a gaseous atmosphere, it experiences extinction and approaches the
speed of light relative to the rest frame of that 'medium'.
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Kennaugh" |
|
| Title: Re: GPS vs. Source Dependency |
20 Feb 2005 03:44:32 AM |
|
|
Henri Wilson writes
Well said, John.
I would add that light is affected by various factors as it travels through the
near vacuum of space. Its speed can change from its original value. If and when
it reaches a gaseous atmosphere, it experiences extinction and approaches the
speed of light relative to the rest frame of that 'medium'.
Rather too dogmatically stated for my taste. My argument is that the
only physical interpretation of SR is LET. There may be an ether as per
Lorentz which is why SR maths works - it is the same as LET
mathematically. Relativists hate the idea of the ether and have got
themselves in the untenable position of believing in a theory which is
based upon a property of the ether. I too don't like the idea of the
ether but I accept that that means logically light must be source
dependent. Those to me are the two options. Ether -source independence -
LET - SR, or no ether - source dependence ballistic theory. I do not
*believe* one or the other but am inclined to think the ballistic theory
is the more credible. With an ether theory the speed of light is
constant w.r.t the ether but if the ballistic theory is correct then
having left the source at c there is nothing keeping it at c relative to
the source. It can only be guaranteed to remain at c relative to the
sources FoR if there is nothing by way of matter which can affect it.
This is what you are saying.
If we consider what actually constitutes an interaction of a photon with
'matter' I think we are really saying that when a photon encounters the
field within (or near to) an atom this constitutes an 'encounter with
matter'.
What do we mean by a 'field'. Originally the ether was conceived as a
means of explaining action-at-a-distance. A magnet distorts the ether
and the stress in the ether acts on the pin and makes it move to the
magnet. This then was extended to be a medium for light to travel in
culminating in Maxwell. With an ether a 'field' is 'real' it is a
physical stress in the ether which Maxwell identified as an electrical
stress. If you produce a stress in a medium that stress can store energy
and can propagate if conditions are correct - that then is light
according to Maxwell. If you assume 'no ether' then you are assuming
that 'action-at-a-distance' just IS. That is OK because we now know that
all force ultimately acts at-a-distance it just requires a readjustment
of ones thinking. Having accepted it we no longer need to explain it by
inventing the ether. However that means that a 'field' is not 'real'. It
is a metaphysical mapping of the direction and strength of an action at
a distance force which *would* act on a charge *if* a charge was placed
there. Bang goes Maxwell. You cannot have a non-existent stress storing
real energy and propagating through a non-existent medium. Again you
have relativists inconsistency. They say there is no ether yet they
quote Maxwell's equations as if they are god given tablets of stone. At
best Maxwell's equations are describing symptoms not causes. Planck
showed they break down in some circumstance.
I have just said that an encounter between a photon and matter is in
reality an encounter between a photon and a field and I have just argued
that a 'field' does not physically exist - only action at a distance. In
order for the speed of a photon to be affected by matter, to be affected
by an electrostatic field, a photon must itself contain charge. [unless
there is some totally unknown action at a distance force]. We know that
a photon has no net charge so it must contain equal + and - charge which
brings me back to the idea that a photon consists of a massless +ve
charge and a massless -ve charge rotating about a common centre.
It is the best I can come up with. I have somewhere got the idea that
the polarisation of light can be affected by a magnetic (or was it an
electrostatic) field but cannot locate a reference.
--
John Kennaugh
to email convert the number from hex to decimal
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: GPS vs. Source Dependency |
20 Feb 2005 01:03:49 PM |
|
|
"John Kennaugh" <JKNG@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:oy2C4TEAwFGCFwV9@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
Henri Wilson writes
Well said, John.
I would add that light is affected by various factors as it travels
through the
near vacuum of space. Its speed can change from its original value. If
and when
it reaches a gaseous atmosphere, it experiences extinction and
approaches the
speed of light relative to the rest frame of that 'medium'.
Rather too dogmatically stated for my taste. My argument is that the
only physical interpretation of SR is LET.
That is just plain silly. The math is identical to sound, and nobody
would
seriously claim the speed of sound was invariant.
Androcles.
There may be an ether as per
Lorentz which is why SR maths works - it is the same as LET
mathematically. Relativists hate the idea of the ether and have got
themselves in the untenable position of believing in a theory which is
based upon a property of the ether. I too don't like the idea of the
ether but I accept that that means logically light must be source
dependent. Those to me are the two options. Ether -source
independence - LET - SR, or no ether - source dependence ballistic
theory. I do not *believe* one or the other but am inclined to think
the ballistic theory is the more credible. With an ether theory the
speed of light is constant w.r.t the ether but if the ballistic theory
is correct then having left the source at c there is nothing keeping
it at c relative to the source. It can only be guaranteed to remain at
c relative to the sources FoR if there is nothing by way of matter
which can affect it. This is what you are saying.
If we consider what actually constitutes an interaction of a photon
with 'matter' I think we are really saying that when a photon
encounters the field within (or near to) an atom this constitutes an
'encounter with matter'.
What do we mean by a 'field'. Originally the ether was conceived as a
means of explaining action-at-a-distance. A magnet distorts the ether
and the stress in the ether acts on the pin and makes it move to the
magnet. This then was extended to be a medium for light to travel in
culminating in Maxwell. With an ether a 'field' is 'real' it is a
physical stress in the ether which Maxwell identified as an electrical
stress. If you produce a stress in a medium that stress can store
energy and can propagate if conditions are correct - that then is
light according to Maxwell. If you assume 'no ether' then you are
assuming that 'action-at-a-distance' just IS. That is OK because we
now know that all force ultimately acts at-a-distance it just requires
a readjustment of ones thinking. Having accepted it we no longer need
to explain it by inventing the ether. However that means that a
'field' is not 'real'. It is a metaphysical mapping of the direction
and strength of an action at a distance force which *would* act on a
charge *if* a charge was placed there. Bang goes Maxwell. You cannot
have a non-existent stress storing real energy and propagating through
a non-existent medium. Again you have relativists inconsistency. They
say there is no ether yet they quote Maxwell's equations as if they
are god given tablets of stone. At best Maxwell's equations are
describing symptoms not causes. Planck showed they break down in some
circumstance.
I have just said that an encounter between a photon and matter is in
reality an encounter between a photon and a field and I have just
argued that a 'field' does not physically exist - only action at a
distance. In order for the speed of a photon to be affected by matter,
to be affected by an electrostatic field, a photon must itself contain
charge. [unless there is some totally unknown action at a distance
force]. We know that a photon has no net charge so it must contain
equal + and - charge which brings me back to the idea that a photon
consists of a massless +ve charge and a massless -ve charge rotating
about a common centre.
It is the best I can come up with. I have somewhere got the idea that
the polarisation of light can be affected by a magnetic (or was it an
electrostatic) field but cannot locate a reference.
--
John Kennaugh
to email convert the number from hex to decimal
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: GPS vs. Source Dependency |
20 Feb 2005 03:35:30 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 09:44:32 +0000, John Kennaugh
<JKNG@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
Henri Wilson writes
Well said, John.
I would add that light is affected by various factors as it travels through the
near vacuum of space. Its speed can change from its original value. If and when
it reaches a gaseous atmosphere, it experiences extinction and approaches the
speed of light relative to the rest frame of that 'medium'.
Rather too dogmatically stated for my taste. My argument is that the
only physical interpretation of SR is LET. There may be an ether as per
Lorentz which is why SR maths works - it is the same as LET
mathematically. Relativists hate the idea of the ether and have got
themselves in the untenable position of believing in a theory which is
based upon a property of the ether. I too don't like the idea of the
ether but I accept that that means logically light must be source
dependent.
(I gather you meant 'independent' there).
I believe that local 'aether frames' can exist in the form of matter.... but
the idea of ONE absolute reference frame is surely not acceptible, even though
the maths 'works'.
Those to me are the two options. Ether -source independence -
LET - SR, or no ether - source dependence ballistic theory. I do not
*believe* one or the other but am inclined to think the ballistic theory
is the more credible. With an ether theory the speed of light is
constant w.r.t the ether but if the ballistic theory is correct then
having left the source at c there is nothing keeping it at c relative to
the source. It can only be guaranteed to remain at c relative to the
sources FoR if there is nothing by way of matter which can affect it.
This is what you are saying.
Yes.
It is difficult to conceive of completely empty space..but that is what
essentially what lies out there. I think that light behaves increasingly more
'ballistically' as gas pressure approaches zero. Otherwise the speed of light
entering aby region containing low pressure matter will adjust its speed
towards the equilibrium speed in that matter frame. That doesn't mean that all
light within that region moves at the same speed. The degree of unification
will dependent on density.
I see nothing wrong with this concept. Nor does it seem to conflict with any
evidence.
If we consider what actually constitutes an interaction of a photon with
'matter' I think we are really saying that when a photon encounters the
field within (or near to) an atom this constitutes an 'encounter with
matter'.
What do we mean by a 'field'. Originally the ether was conceived as a
means of explaining action-at-a-distance. A magnet distorts the ether
and the stress in the ether acts on the pin and makes it move to the
magnet. This then was extended to be a medium for light to travel in
culminating in Maxwell. With an ether a 'field' is 'real' it is a
physical stress in the ether which Maxwell identified as an electrical
stress. If you produce a stress in a medium that stress can store energy
and can propagate if conditions are correct - that then is light
according to Maxwell. If you assume 'no ether' then you are assuming
that 'action-at-a-distance' just IS. That is OK because we now know that
all force ultimately acts at-a-distance it just requires a readjustment
of ones thinking. Having accepted it we no longer need to explain it by
inventing the ether. However that means that a 'field' is not 'real'. It
is a metaphysical mapping of the direction and strength of an action at
a distance force which *would* act on a charge *if* a charge was placed
there. Bang goes Maxwell. You cannot have a non-existent stress storing
real energy and propagating through a non-existent medium. Again you
have relativists inconsistency. They say there is no ether yet they
quote Maxwell's equations as if they are god given tablets of stone. At
best Maxwell's equations are describing symptoms not causes. Planck
showed they break down in some circumstance.
I have just said that an encounter between a photon and matter is in
reality an encounter between a photon and a field and I have just argued
that a 'field' does not physically exist - only action at a distance. In
order for the speed of a photon to be affected by matter, to be affected
by an electrostatic field, a photon must itself contain charge. [unless
there is some totally unknown action at a distance force]. We know that
a photon has no net charge so it must contain equal + and - charge which
brings me back to the idea that a photon consists of a massless +ve
charge and a massless -ve charge rotating about a common centre.
I guess it just goes to show how little we know about the relationship between
fields, matter and action at a distance.
The acceptance of SR tends to keep physics in the dark.
It is the best I can come up with. I have somewhere got the idea that
the polarisation of light can be affected by a magnetic (or was it an
electrostatic) field but cannot locate a reference.
I don't know about that.
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sue..." |
|
| Title: Re: GPS vs. Source Dependency |
20 Feb 2005 04:37:47 PM |
|
|
<< I think that light behaves increasingly more
'ballistically' as gas pressure approaches zero. Otherwise the speed of
light
entering any region containing low pressure matter will adjust its
speed
towards the equilibrium speed in that matter frame. That doesn't mean
that all
light within that region moves at the same speed. The degree of
unification
will dependent on density.
I see nothing wrong with this concept. Nor does it seem to conflict
with any
evidence. >>
Consider a universe comprised of only two hydrogen atoms. You would
have
the electon orbits synchronized at any distance, by photonic (Coulomb ?
) coupling such
that a mid-point observer ( aka problematic vacuum impurity ) would see
the atoms as mirror images at any instant in tiime ?
? means putting words in your mouth. LOL
Anyway... that is my idea of low gas pressure and the "thought model"
is in agreement with yours. I am not sure we could compute a fine
structrue
constant for a universe with only two hydrogen atoms, but if we could,
it would
cast doubt whether the coupling could be intantaneous.
Sue...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: GPS vs. Source Dependency |
21 Feb 2005 04:06:36 AM |
|
|
"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1108939067.728613.225470@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
<< I think that light behaves increasingly more
'ballistically' as gas pressure approaches zero. Otherwise the speed
of
light
entering any region containing low pressure matter will adjust its
speed
towards the equilibrium speed in that matter frame. That doesn't
mean
that all
light within that region moves at the same speed. The degree of
unification
will dependent on density.
I see nothing wrong with this concept.
I do.
At the classical level, it is in contradiction with Maxwell's
equations, according to which
v = c / sqrt (eps*mu), with no adjustment times anywhere in sight.
At the quantum level, a photon always moves with a speed c, even in
matter.
What looks like a slower photon is in reality a succession of photons
absorbed and re-emitted coherently but with a changed phase
Nor does it seem to conflict
with any
evidence.
Nobody has bothered to look, since it would be a clear waste of time
to do so, because the passage of light through transparent media is
already fully understood in all its gory details.
Consider a universe comprised of only two hydrogen atoms. You would
have
the electon orbits
In the ground state, the electron is not in an orbit.
synchronized at any distance,
What is it which you consider to be synchronised?
by photonic
(Coulomb ? ) coupling such
that a mid-point observer ( aka problematic vacuum impurity ) would
see
the atoms as mirror images at any instant in tiime ?
I thought you said the world consists of only 2 atoms. Lets grant you
an observer as well. But then the question still remains: What does
he use for observing the atoms?
You have buggered up the attribution marks, so I don't know where you
stopped and someone else started, so I'll stop here.
[snip]
I don't guarantee that I will answer any reply you may make, unless
you learn how to handle the attributions. Every thread you touch is
turned into crap as things stand.
--
Franz
"The great tragedy of science -- the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis
by an ugly fact."
T.H. Huxley
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sue..." |
|
| Title: Re: GPS vs. Source Dependency |
21 Feb 2005 03:56:48 PM |
|
|
<< I don't guarantee that I will answer any reply you may make, unless
you learn how to handle the attributions. Every thread you touch is
turned into crap as things stand. >>
What reply ?
Sue...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: GPS vs. Source Dependency |
21 Feb 2005 03:44:59 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 10:06:36 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
<notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote:
"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1108939067.728613.225470@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
<< I think that light behaves increasingly more
'ballistically' as gas pressure approaches zero. Otherwise the speed
of
light
entering any region containing low pressure matter will adjust its
speed
towards the equilibrium speed in that matter frame. That doesn't
mean
that all
light within that region moves at the same speed. The degree of
unification
will dependent on density.
I see nothing wrong with this concept.
I do.
At the classical level, it is in contradiction with Maxwell's
equations, according to which
v = c / sqrt (eps*mu), with no adjustment times anywhere in sight.
How do you know the measured values of eps and mu are not dependent on observer
speed through the medium?
You don't.
At the quantum level, a photon always moves with a speed c, even in
matter.
That's an assumption.
What looks like a slower photon is in reality a succession of photons
absorbed and re-emitted coherently but with a changed phase
If we had any idea what the terms 'wavelength', 'frequency' and 'phase' imply
as regards light, we could probably be a little more specific about that.
Nor does it seem to conflict
with any
evidence.
Nobody has bothered to look, since it would be a clear waste of time
to do so, because the passage of light through transparent media is
already fully understood in all its gory details.
It is not at all understood in the high vacuum of space.
Light is emitted at c relative to its source, eg., a star.
Nothing is known about the mechanisms that alter that speed as it traverses
space.
Consider a universe comprised of only two hydrogen atoms. You would
have
the electon orbits
I didn't write that Heymann.
You have your quotes mixed.
In the ground state, the electron is not in an orbit.
synchronized at any distance,
What is it which you consider to be synchronised?
by photonic
(Coulomb ? ) coupling such
that a mid-point observer ( aka problematic vacuum impurity ) would
see
the atoms as mirror images at any instant in tiime ?
I thought you said the world consists of only 2 atoms. Lets grant you
an observer as well. But then the question still remains: What does
he use for observing the atoms?
You have buggered up the attribution marks, so I don't know where you
stopped and someone else started, so I'll stop here.
You stuffed up Heymann.
[snip]
I don't guarantee that I will answer any reply you may make, unless
you learn how to handle the attributions. Every thread you touch is
turned into crap as things stand.
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: GPS vs. Source Dependency |
23 Feb 2005 02:05:29 PM |
|
|
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
news:pskk111vqalqhuvamm6rolfa1tksscpot4@4ax.com...
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 10:06:36 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
<notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote:
"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1108939067.728613.225470@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
<< I think that light behaves increasingly more
'ballistically' as gas pressure approaches zero. Otherwise the
speed
of
light
entering any region containing low pressure matter will adjust
its
speed
towards the equilibrium speed in that matter frame. That doesn't
mean
that all
light within that region moves at the same speed. The degree of
unification
will dependent on density.
I see nothing wrong with this concept.
I do.
At the classical level, it is in contradiction with Maxwell's
equations, according to which
v = c / sqrt (eps*mu), with no adjustment times anywhere in sight.
How do you know the measured values of eps and mu are not dependent
on observer
speed through the medium?
You don't.
I actually do. I have seen my colleagues calculate in in terms of the
polarisability of the atoms, which in turn is calculated ab inition in
the case of the gaseous atoms of low to middle atomic weight, for
which the wavefunctions are known sufficiently well
Fizeau also actually noticed it as early as the mid-nineteenth
century, in his experiments on the speed of light in moving media.
At the quantum level, a photon always moves with a speed c, even in
matter.
That's an assumption.
No. It is a consequence of Maxwell's equations.
For that reasons, Einstein made it one of his postulates of SR, which
in turn is now one of the best established theories ever propounded by
man.
What looks like a slower photon is in reality a succession of
photons
absorbed and re-emitted coherently but with a changed phase
If we had any idea what the terms 'wavelength', 'frequency' and
'phase' imply
as regards light, we could probably be a little more specific about
that.
If you have no idea of what the relationship between the wavelength
and the frequency of EM radiation is, and whay the significance of the
phase of a wave is, that is your problem. It will probably remain so,
since you don't have sufficient neurons to unravel it.
Nor does it seem to conflict
with any
evidence.
Nobody has bothered to look, since it would be a clear waste of
time
to do so, because the passage of light through transparent media is
already fully understood in all its gory details.
It is not at all understood in the high vacuum of space.
Balls.
Light is emitted at c relative to its source, eg., a star.
Nothing is known about the mechanisms that alter that speed as it
traverses
space.
There are no mechanisms in free space. That is what free space is.
Just miles and miles of buggerall.
Consider a universe comprised of only two hydrogen atoms. You
would
have
the electon orbits
I didn't write that Heymann.
You have your quotes mixed.
Blame that idiot Sue for perpetually mishandling attribution marks.
In the ground state, the electron is not in an orbit.
synchronized at any distance,
What is it which you consider to be synchronised?
by photonic
(Coulomb ? ) coupling such
that a mid-point observer ( aka problematic vacuum impurity )
would
see
the atoms as mirror images at any instant in tiime ?
I thought you said the world consists of only 2 atoms. Lets grant
you
an observer as well. But then the question still remains: What
does
he use for observing the atoms?
You have buggered up the attribution marks, so I don't know where
you
stopped and someone else started, so I'll stop here.
You stuffed up Heymann.
[snip]
I don't guarantee that I will answer any reply you may make, unless
you learn how to handle the attributions. Every thread you touch
is
turned into crap as things stand.
--
Franz
"The great tragedy of science -- the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis
by an ugly fact."
T.H. Huxley
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: GPS vs. Source Dependency |
24 Feb 2005 03:47:53 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 20:05:29 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
<notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote:
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
news:pskk111vqalqhuvamm6rolfa1tksscpot4@4ax.com...
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 10:06:36 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
<notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote:
"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1108939067.728613.225470@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
<< I think that light behaves increasingly more
'ballistically' as gas pressure approaches zero. Otherwise the
speed
of
light
entering any region containing low pressure matter will adjust
its
speed
towards the equilibrium speed in that matter frame. That doesn't
mean
that all
light within that region moves at the same speed. The degree of
unification
will dependent on density.
I see nothing wrong with this concept.
I do.
At the classical level, it is in contradiction with Maxwell's
equations, according to which
v = c / sqrt (eps*mu), with no adjustment times anywhere in sight.
How do you know the measured values of eps and mu are not dependent
on observer
speed through the medium?
You don't.
I actually do. I have seen my colleagues calculate in in terms of the
polarisability of the atoms, which in turn is calculated ab inition in
the case of the gaseous atoms of low to middle atomic weight, for
which the wavefunctions are known sufficiently well
Fizeau also actually noticed it as early as the mid-nineteenth
century, in his experiments on the speed of light in moving media.
meaningless.
At the quantum level, a photon always moves with a speed c, even in
matter.
That's an assumption.
No. It is a consequence of Maxwell's equations.
For that reasons, Einstein made it one of his postulates of SR, which
in turn is now one of the best established theories ever propounded by
man.
Maxwell derived a value for the universal constant c, which happens to be
light's speed wrt its source. Maxwell actually thought it was light's speed
through the imaginery aether.
What looks like a slower photon is in reality a succession of
photons
absorbed and re-emitted coherently but with a changed phase
If we had any idea what the terms 'wavelength', 'frequency' and
'phase' imply
as regards light, we could probably be a little more specific about
that.
If you have no idea of what the relationship between the wavelength
and the frequency of EM radiation is, and whay the significance of the
phase of a wave is, that is your problem. It will probably remain so,
since you don't have sufficient neurons to unravel it.
You haven't improved Heymann. You are too ignorant to realise that other people
are way ahead of you.
Obviously there is a clearcut relationship between frequency, wavelength and
speed for a generated EM radio signal or similar.
I'm talking about individual building blocks of light whatever they may be.
If photons exist - which I doubt - what aspect of their INDIVIDUAL structure is
associated with an inherent wavelength of frequency?
Nor does it seem to conflict
with any
evidence.
Nobody has bothered to look, since it would be a clear waste of
time
to do so, because the passage of light through transparent media is
already fully understood in all its gory details.
It is not at all understood in the high vacuum of space.
Balls.
and the same to you.
Light is emitted at c relative to its source, eg., a star.
Nothing is known about the mechanisms that alter that speed as it
traverses
space.
There are no mechanisms in free space. That is what free space is.
Just miles and miles of buggerall.
not so. It is filled with EM.
Consider a universe comprised of only two hydrogen atoms. You
would
have
the electon orbits
I didn't write that Heymann.
You have your quotes mixed.
Blame that idiot Sue for perpetually mishandling attribution marks.
In the ground state, the electron is not in an orbit.
synchronized at any distance,
What is it which you consider to be synchronised?
by photonic
(Coulomb ? ) coupling such
that a mid-point observer ( aka problematic vacuum impurity )
would
see
the atoms as mirror images at any instant in tiime ?
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "jahn" |
|
| Title: Re: GPS vs. Source Dependency |
04 Mar 2005 02:58:41 PM |
|
|
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:rais115lthjg8qvdmp0vvn1c1d6v1rd2p7@4ax.com...
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 20:05:29 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
<notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote:
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
news:pskk111vqalqhuvamm6rolfa1tksscpot4@4ax.com...
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 10:06:36 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
<notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote:
"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1108939067.728613.225470@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
<< I think that light behaves increasingly more
'ballistically' as gas pressure approaches zero. Otherwise the
speed
of
light
entering any region containing low pressure matter will adjust
its
speed
towards the equilibrium speed in that matter frame. That doesn't
mean
that all
light within that region moves at the same speed. The degree of
unification
will dependent on density.
I see nothing wrong with this concept.
I do.
At the classical level, it is in contradiction with Maxwell's
equations, according to which
v = c / sqrt (eps*mu), with no adjustment times anywhere in sight.
How do you know the measured values of eps and mu are not dependent
on observer
speed through the medium?
You don't.
I actually do. I have seen my colleagues calculate in in terms of the
polarisability of the atoms, which in turn is calculated ab inition in
the case of the gaseous atoms of low to middle atomic weight, for
which the wavefunctions are known sufficiently well
Fizeau also actually noticed it as early as the mid-nineteenth
century, in his experiments on the speed of light in moving media.
meaningless.
At the quantum level, a photon always moves with a speed c, even in
matter.
That's an assumption.
No. It is a consequence of Maxwell's equations.
For that reasons, Einstein made it one of his postulates of SR, which
in turn is now one of the best established theories ever propounded by
man.
Maxwell derived a value for the universal constant c, which happens to be
light's speed wrt its source. Maxwell actually thought it was light's speed
through the imaginery aether.
What looks like a slower photon is in reality a succession of
photons
absorbed and re-emitted coherently but with a changed phase
If we had any idea what the terms 'wavelength', 'frequency' and
'phase' imply
as regards light, we could probably be a little more specific about
that.
If you have no idea of what the relationship between the wavelength
and the frequency of EM radiation is, and whay the significance of the
phase of a wave is, that is your problem. It will probably remain so,
since you don't have sufficient neurons to unravel it.
You haven't improved Heymann. You are too ignorant to realise that other people
are way ahead of you.
Obviously there is a clearcut relationship between frequency, wavelength and
speed for a generated EM radio signal or similar.
I'm talking about individual building blocks of light whatever they may be.
If photons exist - which I doubt - what aspect of their INDIVIDUAL structure is
associated with an inherent wavelength of frequency?
Nor does it seem to conflict
with any
evidence.
Nobody has bothered to look, since it would be a clear waste of
time
to do so, because the passage of light through transparent media is
already fully understood in all its gory details.
It is not at all understood in the high vacuum of space.
Balls.
and the same to you.
Light is emitted at c relative to its source, eg., a star.
Nothing is known about the mechanisms that alter that speed as it
traverses
space.
There are no mechanisms in free space. That is what free space is.
Just miles and miles of buggerall.
not so. It is filled with EM.
Consider a universe comprised of only two hydrogen atoms. You
would
have
the electon orbits
I didn't write that Heymann.
You have your quotes mixed.
Blame that idiot Sue for perpetually mishandling attribution marks.
In the ground state, the electron is not in an orbit.
synchronized at any distance,
What is it which you consider to be synchronised?
by photonic
(Coulomb ? ) coupling such
that a mid-point observer ( aka problematic vacuum impurity )
would
see
the atoms as mirror images at any instant in tiime ?
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Henri,
There is a simple experiment that will test your theory.
Document the current, voltage and phase that you believe
an observer should see if a pulsed radiatior is rushing toward him.
Use a one or two element array driven with your
predicted waveforms using DACs if necessary.
Hike off a few km and see if the pulse transits the
range as you predict.
Send the $avings in rocket fuel to my agent.
:o)
Sue...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: GPS vs. Source Dependency |
05 Mar 2005 01:23:29 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 15:58:41 -0500, "jahn" <susysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:rais115lthjg8qvdmp0vvn1c1d6v1rd2p7@4ax.com...
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 20:05:29 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
<notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote:
Henri,
There is a simple experiment that will test your theory.
Document the current, voltage and phase that you believe
an observer should see if a pulsed radiatior is rushing toward him.
Use a one or two element array driven with your
predicted waveforms using DACs if necessary.
Hike off a few km and see if the pulse transits the
range as you predict.
Send the $avings in rocket fuel to my agent.
send Heymann of into space and let him do it.
:o)
Sue...
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
.
|
|
|
| User: "jahn" |
|
| Title: Re: GPS vs. Source Dependency |
05 Mar 2005 01:48:42 PM |
|
|
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:i91k219m53qejoqfhhj34lgviunh4av198@4ax.com...
On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 15:58:41 -0500, "jahn" <susysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:rais115lthjg8qvdmp0vvn1c1d6v1rd2p7@4ax.com...
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 20:05:29 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
<notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote:
Henri,
There is a simple experiment that will test your theory.
Document the current, voltage and phase that you believe
an observer should see if a pulsed radiatior is rushing toward him.
Use a one or two element array driven with your
predicted waveforms using DACs if necessary.
Hike off a few km and see if the pulse transits the
range as you predict.
Send the $avings in rocket fuel to my agent.
send Heymann of into space and let him do it.
Nice ide.....ahhhh manners suzy manners.... ;-)
Sue...
:o)
Sue...
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: GPS vs. Source Dependency |
20 Feb 2005 08:41:43 PM |
|
|
"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1108939067.728613.225470@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
<< I think that light behaves increasingly more
'ballistically' as gas pressure approaches zero. Otherwise the speed
of
light
entering any region containing low pressure matter will adjust its
speed
towards the equilibrium speed in that matter frame. That doesn't mean
that all
light within that region moves at the same speed. The degree of
unification
will dependent on density.
I see nothing wrong with this concept. Nor does it seem to conflict
with any
evidence. >>
Consider a universe comprised of only two hydrogen atoms. You would
have
the electon orbits synchronized at any distance, by photonic (Coulomb
?
) coupling such
that a mid-point observer ( aka problematic vacuum impurity ) would
see
the atoms as mirror images at any instant in tiime ?
? means putting words in your mouth. LOL
Anyway... that is my idea of low gas pressure and the "thought model"
is in agreement with yours. I am not sure we could compute a fine
structrue
constant for a universe with only two hydrogen atoms, but if we could,
it would
cast doubt whether the coupling could be intantaneous.
Sue...
The mid-point observer is "god" and is not part of the universe,
and (s)he is free to wander to any part of it. (S)he is also a point,
having no volume and cannot interact in any way, merely observe.
(S)he is the computer program that displays the model for us to
observe the universe (s)he creates under our direction.
Now write such a program. That CAN be done, and the "laws"
of physics can be changed on our whim.
If you want the coupling be instantaneous, it will be (within the
limitations of the speed of the computer hardware, which is
theoretically and for all practical purposes infinitely fast).
By writing sequential instructions, you are inherently creating
cause before effect. Even that can be simulated out by randomly
jumping to routines that have inappropriate data.
If you want a delay in the coupling, program it in.
If you want time dilation or length contraction between FoRs,
have it.
If you want aether, add it to control the delay under the laws
of permittivity and permeability you create.
The smallest program you write will be known as "Occam".
Now see who can simulate the two atom universe with the least
amount of code, using common code for display and human
interface purposes.
Improve the simulation with 3 atoms, then 4, and so on.
Ultimately you'll have "Deep Thought" and the answer will be 42.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/hitchhikers/guide/answer.shtml
Androcles.
.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
