| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"kenseto" |
| Date: |
20 Mar 2005 11:47:09 AM |
| Object: |
Speed of Light: A universal Constant? |
SR says that the speed of light is a universal constant.
Questions:
Why a clock second used to define the speed of light is not an interval of
universal time??
Why does SR say that a clock second in one frame does not correspond to a
clock second in another frame when the speed of light is a universal
constant??
Ken Seto
.
|
|
| User: "bz" |
|
| Title: Re: Catch some slow photons? |
16 Jun 2005 09:39:16 PM |
|
|
H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in
news:6404b1d99rd0lhuuet7qco4paiksqpf17u@4ax.com:
On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 12:35:37 +0000 (UTC), bz
<bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote:
H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in
news:f5n2b15u74op7qrisg9gui3vih2tfcgaq4@4ax.com:
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 21:33:11 +0000 (UTC), bz
<bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote:
H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in
news:7051b1td3b98sp4d0jfdbjrtsfe0sd59ra@4ax.com:
Any place photons are emitted by moving objects is a right place to
look.
Any moving source in remote space can emit >>c photons wrt you.
Any moving source anywhere should emit c'=c+v photons.
ANY moving source. We should be seeing v<<c and v>>c photons in a lot
of places. None are observed.
...you know about all those gamma ray bursts......
I know that gamma ray bursts can produced by many things. I know that,
as of today, no one has reported observation of any photons that are
traveling at any speed other than c.
Gamma ray bursts could easily consist of Xrays traveling at >>c
They could, but there is no evidence that they do.
Besides, <<c photons should be just as likely as >>c photons.
No evidence of EITHER.
How do you know?
No one has published a study indicating they have found >>c or <<c photons.
Plenty of people would like to find such.
No one has published a study indicating they have found such.
You don't have access to a OWLS measuring apparatus.
No one has one that would satisfy you. But such is not needed for detection
of >>c or <<c photons.
I just fed in velocity 0.00005c, distance 1.2 LYs, eccentricity
0.25..and, guess what?
I am guessing that the results depend on which version of your program I
use.
I think you should see for yourself.....
I would be very surprised if the curves from the latest version did not
look right.
Suggestion: "Pause button" Make it toggle between "Pause" and "continue"
"restart" button, should restart at the beginning.
OK. Will do that.
"period" doesn't seem to do anything except change the
number
displayed on the output page.
It also changes the 'distance' indicated during 'pause'...very
inportant.
Only if you know to look there.
"distance" should STOP the curve generation
automatically when
the set distance is reached.
I could include that facility as well.
Yes, it should be easy and it would make things 'more intuitive' for the
user that didn't write the program from scratch and doesn't have any idea
what it is doing nor why.
But the 'wavefront movement'
section are good indicatoirs of when to stop. Wherever the line becomes
verical, a corresponding peak will occur in the brightness curve. During
pause, if you click the left button on the screen, a yellow vertical
line will appear and allow you to count the number of images that an
observer should see.
"circle radius" should display principle axis (a) for non
circular orbits" or perhaps the 'average radius' [sqrt(a^2+b^2)/2].
note: the box above the 'back to main screen' button
is unreadable.
That is NOT what you have done. You have taken some of the data, and
the light curves and you have varied the parameters in your program
until the curves look the same. If you then take your parameters and
find that they match some properties that you were not in possesion
of, THEN you might say that you successfully predicted THOSE
properties.
Now you just need to produce those curves with one or more stars
moving in orbits that are possible.
I just have.
In what way?
What are the masses of the bodies involved,
temperatures of the bodies involved.
diameters of the masses involved,
and what are the orbital parameters?
One thing at a time please Bob......I'm flat out now!
Those are the real crucial questions.
And YES, I understand that you are going as fast as you can.
We all are working under the terrible handicap....of being perfectly human.
:)
The orbital velocities must match the orbital parameters.
So far, this has not been done.
It has now. The curves match RT Aur exactly.
You cannot possibly have any doubts after seeing this.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
When your program reproduces the curves of 100 Cepheids,
when your program PREDICTS parameters that were previously unknown and
they are subsequently confirmed by observation,
THEN I will have no more doubts about your theory than I do about any
other theory.
Which means I will always doubt and question it and look for ways to
test it further.
I keep telling you that I do not place my faith in any theory.
that's a good attitude.
please try to convert Andersen to the same.
I am neither an acolyte nor a priest nor a guru. From what I have seen of
him, Paul seems to be as open minded as I am, but a bit less patient. He
makes fewer mistakes but he is just as free about admitting when he makes
one as I try to be.
To give you your due, I have also seen you admit to making mistakes, and
for that I congratulate and give you credit. :)
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: Catch some slow photons? |
17 Jun 2005 01:06:59 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 02:39:16 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu>
wrote:
H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in
news:6404b1d99rd0lhuuet7qco4paiksqpf17u@4ax.com:
On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 12:35:37 +0000 (UTC), bz
<bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote:
H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in
news:f5n2b15u74op7qrisg9gui3vih2tfcgaq4@4ax.com:
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 21:33:11 +0000 (UTC), bz
<bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote:
H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in
news:7051b1td3b98sp4d0jfdbjrtsfe0sd59ra@4ax.com:
Any place photons are emitted by moving objects is a right place to
look.
Any moving source in remote space can emit >>c photons wrt you.
Any moving source anywhere should emit c'=c+v photons.
ANY moving source. We should be seeing v<<c and v>>c photons in a lot
of places. None are observed.
...you know about all those gamma ray bursts......
I know that gamma ray bursts can produced by many things. I know that,
as of today, no one has reported observation of any photons that are
traveling at any speed other than c.
Gamma ray bursts could easily consist of Xrays traveling at >>c
They could, but there is no evidence that they do.
Besides, <<c photons should be just as likely as >>c photons.
No evidence of EITHER.
How do you know?
No one has published a study indicating they have found >>c or <<c photons.
Plenty of people would like to find such.
No one has published a study indicating they have found such.
I repeat, they don't know where to look.
You don't have access to a OWLS measuring apparatus.
No one has one that would satisfy you. But such is not needed for detection
of >>c or <<c photons.
I don't agree.
I just fed in velocity 0.00005c, distance 1.2 LYs, eccentricity
0.25..and, guess what?
I am guessing that the results depend on which version of your program I
use.
I think you should see for yourself.....
I would be very surprised if the curves from the latest version did not
look right.
Suggestion: "Pause button" Make it toggle between "Pause" and "continue"
"restart" button, should restart at the beginning.
OK. Will do that.
"period" doesn't seem to do anything except change the
number
displayed on the output page.
It also changes the 'distance' indicated during 'pause'...very
inportant.
Only if you know to look there.
The program uses 1 period as the time unit. So each line represents one orbit.
The bottom of one line continues at the top of the next.
It is easier that way.
"distance" should STOP the curve generation
automatically when
the set distance is reached.
I could include that facility as well.
Yes, it should be easy and it would make things 'more intuitive' for the
user that didn't write the program from scratch and doesn't have any idea
what it is doing nor why.
OK. Will do.
But the 'wavefront movement'
section are good indicatoirs of when to stop. Wherever the line becomes
verical, a corresponding peak will occur in the brightness curve. During
pause, if you click the left button on the screen, a yellow vertical
line will appear and allow you to count the number of images that an
observer should see.
"circle radius" should display principle axis (a) for non
circular orbits" or perhaps the 'average radius' [sqrt(a^2+b^2)/2].
note: the box above the 'back to main screen' button
is unreadable.
That is NOT what you have done. You have taken some of the data, and
the light curves and you have varied the parameters in your program
until the curves look the same. If you then take your parameters and
find that they match some properties that you were not in possesion
of, THEN you might say that you successfully predicted THOSE
properties.
Now you just need to produce those curves with one or more stars
moving in orbits that are possible.
I just have.
In what way?
What are the masses of the bodies involved,
temperatures of the bodies involved.
diameters of the masses involved,
and what are the orbital parameters?
One thing at a time please Bob......I'm flat out now!
Those are the real crucial questions.
And YES, I understand that you are going as fast as you can.
We all are working under the terrible handicap....of being perfectly human.
:)
...and time used to move so slowly.
Which raises the question agaiin "what is timeflow?"
Which means I will always doubt and question it and look for ways to
test it further.
I keep telling you that I do not place my faith in any theory.
that's a good attitude.
please try to convert Andersen to the same.
I am neither an acolyte nor a priest nor a guru. From what I have seen of
him, Paul seems to be as open minded as I am, but a bit less patient. He
makes fewer mistakes but he is just as free about admitting when he makes
one as I try to be.
but he is exceedingly stubborn.
To give you your due, I have also seen you admit to making mistakes, and
for that I congratulate and give you credit. :)
thanks.
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: "bz" |
|
| Title: Re: Catch some slow photons? |
17 Jun 2005 04:01:41 AM |
|
|
H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in
news:eop4b159j457v6opq3bjtaua82t25vrn88@4ax.com:
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 02:39:16 +0000 (UTC), bz
<bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote:
H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in
news:6404b1d99rd0lhuuet7qco4paiksqpf17u@4ax.com:
On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 12:35:37 +0000 (UTC), bz
<bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote:
H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in
news:f5n2b15u74op7qrisg9gui3vih2tfcgaq4@4ax.com:
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 21:33:11 +0000 (UTC), bz
<bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote:
H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in
news:7051b1td3b98sp4d0jfdbjrtsfe0sd59ra@4ax.com:
Any place photons are emitted by moving objects is a right place to
look.
Any moving source in remote space can emit >>c photons wrt you.
Any moving source anywhere should emit c'=c+v photons.
ANY moving source. We should be seeing v<<c and v>>c photons in a
lot of places. None are observed.
...you know about all those gamma ray bursts......
I know that gamma ray bursts can produced by many things. I know
that, as of today, no one has reported observation of any photons
that are traveling at any speed other than c.
Gamma ray bursts could easily consist of Xrays traveling at >>c
They could, but there is no evidence that they do.
Besides, <<c photons should be just as likely as >>c photons.
No evidence of EITHER.
How do you know?
No one has published a study indicating they have found >>c or <<c
photons. Plenty of people would like to find such.
No one has published a study indicating they have found such.
I repeat, they don't know where to look.
And I repeat, anywhere that a moving object is emitting photons is the
place to look.
You don't have access to a OWLS measuring apparatus.
No one has one that would satisfy you. But such is not needed for
detection of >>c or <<c photons.
I don't agree.
Right. We disagree.
I just fed in velocity 0.00005c, distance 1.2 LYs, eccentricity
0.25..and, guess what?
I am guessing that the results depend on which version of your program
I use.
I think you should see for yourself.....
I would be very surprised if the curves from the latest version did
not look right.
.....
It also changes the 'distance' indicated during 'pause'...very
inportant.
Only if you know to look there.
The program uses 1 period as the time unit. So each line represents one
orbit. The bottom of one line continues at the top of the next.
It is easier that way.
And I don't see a problem with that. But the program needs to auto-stop
when it reaches a set distance.
"distance" should STOP the curve generation
automatically when
the set distance is reached.
I could include that facility as well.
Yes, it should be easy and it would make things 'more intuitive' for the
user that didn't write the program from scratch and doesn't have any
idea what it is doing nor why.
OK. Will do.
But the 'wavefront movement'
section are good indicatoirs of when to stop. Wherever the line
becomes verical, a corresponding peak will occur in the brightness
curve. During pause, if you click the left button on the screen, a
yellow vertical line will appear and allow you to count the number of
images that an observer should see.
"circle radius" should display principle axis (a) for non
circular orbits" or perhaps the 'average radius' [sqrt(a^2+b^2)/2].
note: the box above the 'back to main screen' button
is unreadable.
That is NOT what you have done. You have taken some of the data, and
the light curves and you have varied the parameters in your program
until the curves look the same. If you then take your parameters and
find that they match some properties that you were not in possesion
of, THEN you might say that you successfully predicted THOSE
properties.
Now you just need to produce those curves with one or more stars
moving in orbits that are possible.
I just have.
In what way?
What are the masses of the bodies involved,
temperatures of the bodies involved.
diameters of the masses involved,
and what are the orbital parameters?
One thing at a time please Bob......I'm flat out now!
Those are the real crucial questions.
And YES, I understand that you are going as fast as you can.
We all are working under the terrible handicap....of being perfectly
human.
:)
..and time used to move so slowly.
Our 2 year old granddaughter sees time moving very slowly now. Relativity.
Which raises the question agaiin "what is timeflow?"
delta [total] entropy.
Which means I will always doubt and question it and look for ways to
test it further.
I keep telling you that I do not place my faith in any theory.
that's a good attitude.
please try to convert Andersen to the same.
I am neither an acolyte nor a priest nor a guru. From what I have seen
of him, Paul seems to be as open minded as I am, but a bit less patient.
He makes fewer mistakes but he is just as free about admitting when he
makes one as I try to be.
but he is exceedingly stubborn.
A very wise person once pointed out to me the fact that, often, the people
I have the most trouble dealing with are the most like me in some way. That
way is usually I way that I have difficulty accepting in myself.
To give you your due, I have also seen you admit to making mistakes, and
for that I congratulate and give you credit. :)
thanks.
You are always welcome.
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: Catch some slow photons? |
19 Jun 2005 07:45:13 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 09:01:41 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu>
wrote:
H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in
news:eop4b159j457v6opq3bjtaua82t25vrn88@4ax.com:
And I don't see a problem with that. But the program needs to auto-stop
when it reaches a set distance.
OK. I will incorporate that. ...quite easy really.
One thing at a time please Bob......I'm flat out now!
Those are the real crucial questions.
And YES, I understand that you are going as fast as you can.
We all are working under the terrible handicap....of being perfectly
human.
:)
..and time used to move so slowly.
Our 2 year old granddaughter sees time moving very slowly now. Relativity.
Which raises the question agaiin "what is timeflow?"
delta [total] entropy.
No. Circular again.
Entropy has a time dimension implanted somewhere. Dimensions:
mL^2T^-2 per degree.
I am neither an acolyte nor a priest nor a guru. From what I have seen
of him, Paul seems to be as open minded as I am, but a bit less patient.
He makes fewer mistakes but he is just as free about admitting when he
makes one as I try to be.
but he is exceedingly stubborn.
A very wise person once pointed out to me the fact that, often, the people
I have the most trouble dealing with are the most like me in some way. That
way is usually I way that I have difficulty accepting in myself.
Fair enough.
but does that apply to the opposite sex as welll?
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: "bz" |
|
| Title: Re: Catch some slow photons? |
20 Jun 2005 07:40:30 AM |
|
|
H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in
news:614cb1d686ghk1utsh4aejqpp097gdeoi0@4ax.com:
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 09:01:41 +0000 (UTC), bz
<bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote:
H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in
news:eop4b159j457v6opq3bjtaua82t25vrn88@4ax.com:
And I don't see a problem with that. But the program needs to auto-stop
when it reaches a set distance.
OK. I will incorporate that. ...quite easy really.
I know. That is why I suggested it. Easy and it will enhance your program.
.....
Which raises the question agaiin "what is timeflow?"
delta [total] entropy.
No. Circular again.
Entropy has a time dimension implanted somewhere. Dimensions:
mL^2T^-2 per degree.
Not a valid objection. Relationships can alway be expressed with units that
are part of the relationship.
I am neither an acolyte nor a priest nor a guru. From what I have seen
of him, Paul seems to be as open minded as I am, but a bit less
patient. He makes fewer mistakes but he is just as free about
admitting when he makes one as I try to be.
but he is exceedingly stubborn.
A very wise person once pointed out to me the fact that, often, the
people I have the most trouble dealing with are the most like me in some
way. That way is usually a way that I have difficulty accepting in
myself.
Fair enough.
but does that apply to the opposite sex as welll?
Of course. All personality traits are present [to some degree] in every
person, regardless of sex. If a human being is capable of acting that way,
every human has the capability of acting similarly.
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: Catch some slow photons? |
21 Jun 2005 05:41:05 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 12:40:30 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu>
wrote:
H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in
news:614cb1d686ghk1utsh4aejqpp097gdeoi0@4ax.com:
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 09:01:41 +0000 (UTC), bz
<bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote:
H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in
news:eop4b159j457v6opq3bjtaua82t25vrn88@4ax.com:
And I don't see a problem with that. But the program needs to auto-stop
when it reaches a set distance.
OK. I will incorporate that. ...quite easy really.
I know. That is why I suggested it. Easy and it will enhance your program.
....
Which raises the question agaiin "what is timeflow?"
delta [total] entropy.
No. Circular again.
Entropy has a time dimension implanted somewhere. Dimensions:
mL^2T^-2 per degree.
Not a valid objection. Relationships can alway be expressed with units that
are part of the relationship.
No quantity can be used to any degree in its own definition.
I am neither an acolyte nor a priest nor a guru. From what I have seen
of him, Paul seems to be as open minded as I am, but a bit less
patient. He makes fewer mistakes but he is just as free about
admitting when he makes one as I try to be.
but he is exceedingly stubborn.
A very wise person once pointed out to me the fact that, often, the
people I have the most trouble dealing with are the most like me in some
way. That way is usually a way that I have difficulty accepting in
myself.
Fair enough.
but does that apply to the opposite sex as welll?
Of course. All personality traits are present [to some degree] in every
person, regardless of sex. If a human being is capable of acting that way,
every human has the capability of acting similarly.
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: "bz" |
|
| Title: Re: Catch some slow photons? |
21 Jun 2005 09:19:09 PM |
|
|
H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in
news:5s5hb19is2nlhjg7b9m4r0pf66e6v4rk0k@4ax.com:
Which raises the question agaiin "what is timeflow?"
delta [total] entropy.
No. Circular again.
Entropy has a time dimension implanted somewhere. Dimensions:
mL^2T^-2 per degree.
Not a valid objection. Relationships can alway be expressed with units
that are part of the relationship.
No quantity can be used to any degree in its own definition.
Units for entropy are
Energy per (mass temperature)
I don't see time anywhere.
Are you going to tell me that I can't use energy or mass or temperature to
describe time?
Of course, energy can be expressed in terms of time, so can mass, so can
temperature. Is there anything that can not be expressed in terms of time
through some equation?
Is there anything that cannot be expressed in terms of space?
Is there anything that cannot be expressed in terms of temperature?
Is there anything that cannot be expressed in terms of mass?
Everything can be expressed in terms of everything else.
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: Catch some slow photons? |
23 Jun 2005 05:10:17 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 02:19:09 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu>
wrote:
H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in
news:5s5hb19is2nlhjg7b9m4r0pf66e6v4rk0k@4ax.com:
Not a valid objection. Relationships can alway be expressed with units
that are part of the relationship.
No quantity can be used to any degree in its own definition.
Units for entropy are
Energy per (mass temperature)
I don't see time anywhere.
The dimensions of energy are ML^2T^-2.
Do you see the 'T'?
Are you going to tell me that I can't use energy or mass or temperature to
describe time?
correct.
Of course, energy can be expressed in terms of time, so can mass, so can
temperature. Is there anything that can not be expressed in terms of time
through some equation?
Yes...length.
Length as the distance between two points...but you can't use 'length' or
'distance' in any definition of space.
Strangely, temperature doesn't have prescribed 'MLT' dimensions.
Is there anything that cannot be expressed in terms of space?
Is there anything that cannot be expressed in terms of temperature?
Is there anything that cannot be expressed in terms of mass?
Everything can be expressed in terms of everything else.
yes. But we cannot seem to define these fundamental 'dimensions'.
It's like trying to define 'red'.
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: "sue jahn" |
|
| Title: Re: Catch some slow photons? |
23 Jun 2005 05:22:13 AM |
|
|
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:562lb1tqtqcc7oilai7kkq651nvefp8h6b@4ax.com...
On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 02:19:09 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu>
wrote:
H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in
news:5s5hb19is2nlhjg7b9m4r0pf66e6v4rk0k@4ax.com:
Not a valid objection. Relationships can alway be expressed with units
that are part of the relationship.
No quantity can be used to any degree in its own definition.
Units for entropy are
Energy per (mass temperature)
I don't see time anywhere.
The dimensions of energy are ML^2T^-2.
Do you see the 'T'?
Are you going to tell me that I can't use energy or mass or temperature to
describe time?
correct.
correct?
ROFL
That must be why we have to pay for rainwater but
gas, oil and coal is free for the taking.
"So come with me, where dreams are born,
and time is never planned. Just think of happy things,
and your heart will fly on wings, forever, in Never Never Land!"
Sue...
Of course, energy can be expressed in terms of time, so can mass, so can
temperature. Is there anything that can not be expressed in terms of time
through some equation?
Yes...length.
Length as the distance between two points...but you can't use 'length' or
'distance' in any definition of space.
Strangely, temperature doesn't have prescribed 'MLT' dimensions.
Is there anything that cannot be expressed in terms of space?
Is there anything that cannot be expressed in terms of temperature?
Is there anything that cannot be expressed in terms of mass?
Everything can be expressed in terms of everything else.
yes. But we cannot seem to define these fundamental 'dimensions'.
It's like trying to define 'red'.
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: "bz" |
|
| Title: Re: Catch some slow photons? |
23 Jun 2005 06:46:45 AM |
|
|
H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:562lb1tqtqcc7oilai7kkq651nvefp8h6b@
4ax.com:
On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 02:19:09 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu>
wrote:
H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in
news:5s5hb19is2nlhjg7b9m4r0pf66e6v4rk0k@4ax.com:
Not a valid objection. Relationships can alway be expressed with units
that are part of the relationship.
No quantity can be used to any degree in its own definition.
Units for entropy are
Energy per (mass temperature)
I don't see time anywhere.
The dimensions of energy are ML^2T^-2.
Entropy is expressed in Joules per kelvin
or BTU per degree F
http://www.efunda.com/units/show_units.cfm?Alfa=no&String1=Entropy&String2
=Entropy
Do you see the 'T'?
NOPE. Joules/K
Are you going to tell me that I can't use energy or mass or temperature
to describe time?
correct.
Then time can not be described.
Of course, energy can be expressed in terms of time, so can mass, so can
temperature. Is there anything that can not be expressed in terms of time
through some equation?
Yes...length.
WRONG.
Length is now DEFINED in terms of time from a wavelength which is how far
light travels in a specific time.
Length as the distance between two points...but you can't use 'length' or
'distance' in any definition of space.
NOTHING can be defined without using things that are related to the thing
being defined.
Strangely, temperature doesn't have prescribed 'MLT' dimensions.
Temperature can be expressed in terms of average kinetic energy of
molecules. Average kinetic energy can be expressed in terms of mass, length
and time.
Is there anything that cannot be expressed in terms of space?
Is there anything that cannot be expressed in terms of temperature?
Is there anything that cannot be expressed in terms of mass?
Everything can be expressed in terms of everything else.
yes. But we cannot seem to define these fundamental 'dimensions'.
It's like trying to define 'red'.
One needs to be well read to define red.
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: Catch some slow photons? |
23 Jun 2005 05:48:25 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 11:46:45 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu>
wrote:
H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:562lb1tqtqcc7oilai7kkq651nvefp8h6b@
4ax.com:
On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 02:19:09 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu>
wrote:
H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in
news:5s5hb19is2nlhjg7b9m4r0pf66e6v4rk0k@4ax.com:
Not a valid objection. Relationships can alway be expressed with units
that are part of the relationship.
No quantity can be used to any degree in its own definition.
Units for entropy are
Energy per (mass temperature)
I don't see time anywhere.
The dimensions of energy are ML^2T^-2.
Entropy is expressed in Joules per kelvin
or BTU per degree F
http://www.efunda.com/units/show_units.cfm?Alfa=no&String1=Entropy&String2
=Entropy
Do you see the 'T'?
NOPE. Joules/K
Joules are energy dimensions ML^2T^-2
there is your 'T'
Are you going to tell me that I can't use energy or mass or temperature
to describe time?
correct.
Then time can not be described.
Correct. No fundamental dimensions can be defined.
They just ARE.
Of course, energy can be expressed in terms of time, so can mass, so can
temperature. Is there anything that can not be expressed in terms of time
through some equation?
Yes...length.
WRONG.
Length is now DEFINED in terms of time from a wavelength which is how far
light travels in a specific time.
No it isn't.
You are getting confused between a 'definition' and a 'reference standard'.
Length as the distance between two points...but you can't use 'length' or
'distance' in any definition of space.
NOTHING can be defined without using things that are related to the thing
being defined.
Then you have circularity.
Strangely, temperature doesn't have prescribed 'MLT' dimensions.
Temperature can be expressed in terms of average kinetic energy of
molecules. Average kinetic energy can be expressed in terms of mass, length
and time.
Whatever its value, it turns out to be a dimensionless ratio.
Is there anything that cannot be expressed in terms of space?
Is there anything that cannot be expressed in terms of temperature?
Is there anything that cannot be expressed in terms of mass?
Everything can be expressed in terms of everything else.
yes. But we cannot seem to define these fundamental 'dimensions'.
It's like trying to define 'red'.
One needs to be well read to define red.
define 'blue' then.
You see, it is no good just saying "blue is the colour of the sky" or "blue is
the colour of light with certain wavelengths" because although that definition
allows us to consistently agree on what objects are blue, there is no way of
knowing if your 'blue' is also 'my blue'.
My 'blue' might be your 'red' for all we know.
Color is not a property of the viewed object. It is psychological. So perhaps
are our interpretations of time and space.
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: "bz" |
|
| Title: Re: Catch some slow photons? |
23 Jun 2005 08:03:35 PM |
|
|
H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in
news:3eemb1l4r8sprpjndaog72u9etq99f14le@4ax.com:
On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 11:46:45 +0000 (UTC), bz
<bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote:
H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:562lb1tqtqcc7oilai7kkq651nvefp8h6b@
4ax.com:
On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 02:19:09 +0000 (UTC), bz
<bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote:
H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in
news:5s5hb19is2nlhjg7b9m4r0pf66e6v4rk0k@4ax.com:
Not a valid objection. Relationships can alway be expressed with
units that are part of the relationship.
No quantity can be used to any degree in its own definition.
Units for entropy are
Energy per (mass temperature)
I don't see time anywhere.
The dimensions of energy are ML^2T^-2.
Entropy is expressed in Joules per kelvin
or BTU per degree F
http://www.efunda.com/units/show_units.cfm?Alfa=no&String1=Entropy&String
2 =Entropy
Do you see the 'T'?
NOPE. Joules/K
Joules are energy dimensions ML^2T^-2
there is your 'T'
As I said, you can express anything in terms of anything.
Joules can be expressed in terms of time, that doesn't mean it IS time.
Are you going to tell me that I can't use energy or mass or
temperature to describe time?
correct.
Then time can not be described.
Correct. No fundamental dimensions can be defined.
They just ARE.
They can all be expressed in terms of other 'fundamental dimensions'.
In fact, the choice of which are 'fundamental' is arbitrary.
Of course, energy can be expressed in terms of time, so can mass, so
can temperature. Is there anything that can not be expressed in terms
of time through some equation?
Yes...length.
WRONG.
Length is now DEFINED in terms of time from a wavelength which is how
far light travels in a specific time.
No it isn't.
You are getting confused between a 'definition' and a 'reference
standard'.
No. It is DEFINED.
The speed of light has been DEFINED as a certain number of meters per second.
A definition is an internationally agreed upon DEFINITION.
Length as the distance between two points...but you can't use 'length'
or 'distance' in any definition of space.
NOTHING can be defined without using things that are related to the
thing being defined.
Then you have circularity.
Once a set of fundamental units are picked, everything else is expressed in
terms of them.
Strangely, temperature doesn't have prescribed 'MLT' dimensions.
Temperature can be expressed in terms of average kinetic energy of
molecules. Average kinetic energy can be expressed in terms of mass,
length and time.
Whatever its value, it turns out to be a dimensionless ratio.
Where did you get THAT idea?
Take PV=nRT and put in P=1 atm, V=22.4 L/mol, n=1 mol, R=8.314510*joule/(mol
K, solve for T)
Is there anything that cannot be expressed in terms of space?
Is there anything that cannot be expressed in terms of temperature?
Is there anything that cannot be expressed in terms of mass?
Everything can be expressed in terms of everything else.
yes. But we cannot seem to define these fundamental 'dimensions'.
It's like trying to define 'red'.
One needs to be well read to define red.
define 'blue' then.
You blew that one.
You see, it is no good just saying "blue is the colour of the sky" or
"blue is the colour of light with certain wavelengths" because although
that definition allows us to consistently agree on what objects are
blue, there is no way of knowing if your 'blue' is also 'my blue'.
My 'blue' might be your 'red' for all we know.
I doubt it, unless one of us is color blind. Of course, until we can read
someones mind we can't know what they actually see, but we don't even know
they exist. You can go 'into that kind of thinking' so deeply that you stop
believing in reality.
Safer to assume that there is a reality and that most people see it close
enough to the same to be able to communicate and work together some times.
Color is not a property of the viewed object. It is psychological. So
perhaps are our interpretations of time and space.
If you think too much about thinking, you can go crazy.
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sue..." |
|
| Title: Re: Catch some slow photons? |
23 Jun 2005 09:28:08 PM |
|
|
<<I doubt it, unless one of us is color blind. Of course, until we can
read
someones mind we can't know what they actually see, but we don't even
know
they exist. >>
An optometrist reads a persons mind by saying:
"Do you see a number hidden in this picture?"
You can, of course lie if compusive military service is
on your mind and you don't want it read. :o)
There are people with their "brain wires crossed".
With some psychological tests it can be extablished
that they hear red or smell blue just so they have
enough vision to respond to these wavelengths.
Approximate RGB values for Visible Wavelengths
http://www.isc.tamu.edu/~astro/color/spectra.html
http://www.usbyte.com/common/approximate_wavelength.htm
Sue...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: Catch some slow photons? |
25 Jun 2005 07:18:03 PM |
|
|
On 23 Jun 2005 19:28:08 -0700, "Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
<<I doubt it, unless one of us is color blind. Of course, until we can
read
someones mind we can't know what they actually see, but we don't even
know
they exist. >>
An optometrist reads a persons mind by saying:
"Do you see a number hidden in this picture?"
You can, of course lie if compusive military service is
on your mind and you don't want it read. :o)
There are people with their "brain wires crossed".
With some psychological tests it can be extablished
that they hear red or smell blue just so they have
enough vision to respond to these wavelengths.
That isn't a silly as it sounds.
The mind has an 'internal language' by which it displays external stimuli in
kind of shorthand.
For all we know my 'word' for rotten egg gas might be yours for 'red'.
Approximate RGB values for Visible Wavelengths
http://www.isc.tamu.edu/~astro/color/spectra.html
http://www.usbyte.com/common/approximate_wavelength.htm
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: "Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: Catch some slow photons? |
25 Jun 2005 07:15:22 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 01:03:35 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu>
wrote:
H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in
news:3eemb1l4r8sprpjndaog72u9etq99f14le@4ax.com:
On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 11:46:45 +0000 (UTC), bz
<bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote:
H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:562lb1tqtqcc7oilai7kkq651nvefp8h6b@
4ax.com:
On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 02:19:09 +0000 (UTC), bz
<bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote:
H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in
news:5s5hb19is2nlhjg7b9m4r0pf66e6v4rk0k@4ax.com:
Not a valid objection. Relationships can alway be expressed with
units that are part of the relationship.
No quantity can be used to any degree in its own definition.
Units for entropy are
Energy per (mass temperature)
I don't see time anywhere.
The dimensions of energy are ML^2T^-2.
Entropy is expressed in Joules per kelvin
or BTU per degree F
http://www.efunda.com/units/show_units.cfm?Alfa=no&String1=Entropy&String
2 =Entropy
Do you see the 'T'?
NOPE. Joules/K
Joules are energy dimensions ML^2T^-2
there is your 'T'
As I said, you can express anything in terms of anything.
Joules can be expressed in terms of time, that doesn't mean it IS time.
Are you going to tell me that I can't use energy or mass or
temperature to describe time?
correct.
Then time can not be described.
Correct. No fundamental dimensions can be defined.
They just ARE.
They can all be expressed in terms of other 'fundamental dimensions'.
In fact, the choice of which are 'fundamental' is arbitrary.
You are confusing 'describing' and 'evaluating' with 'defining'.
No it isn't.
You are getting confused between a 'definition' and a 'reference
standard'.
No. It is DEFINED.
The speed of light has been DEFINED as a certain number of meters per second.
A definition is an internationally agreed upon DEFINITION.
That is the 'speed of light wrt its source', of course. You are 100% correct.
'c' is a fundamental constant.
Length as the distance between two points...but you can't use 'length'
or 'distance' in any definition of space.
NOTHING can be defined without using things that are related to the
thing being defined.
Then you have circularity.
Once a set of fundamental units are picked, everything else is expressed in
terms of them.
But you cannot 'define' any without circularity..
Strangely, temperature doesn't have prescribed 'MLT' dimensions.
Temperature can be expressed in terms of average kinetic energy of
molecules. Average kinetic energy can be expressed in terms of mass,
length and time.
Whatever its value, it turns out to be a dimensionless ratio.
Where did you get THAT idea?
Take PV=nRT and put in P=1 atm, V=22.4 L/mol, n=1 mol, R=8.314510*joule/(mol
K, solve for T)
T comes out dimensionless. R makes it so.
One needs to be well read to define red.
define 'blue' then.
You blew that one.
You're pretty green Bob.
You see, it is no good just saying "blue is the colour of the sky" or
"blue is the colour of light with certain wavelengths" because although
that definition allows us to consistently agree on what objects are
blue, there is no way of knowing if your 'blue' is also 'my blue'.
My 'blue' might be your 'red' for all we know.
I doubt it, unless one of us is color blind. Of course, until we can read
someones mind we can't know what they actually see, but we don't even know
they exist. You can go 'into that kind of thinking' so deeply that you stop
believing in reality.
Safer to assume that there is a reality and that most people see it close
enough to the same to be able to communicate and work together some times.
We probably all see the same visual images because we share common genes...
that is only an assumption though.
Color is not a property of the viewed object. It is psychological. So
perhaps are our interpretations of time and space.
If you think too much about thinking, you can go crazy.
haven't so far.
It is important to separate the physical from the psychological. Very
interesting thing, the mind.
A spectrometer can differentiate between red and blue light based on
'frequency'...but it doesn't create a unique mental image for each shade of
colour. The same applies to sound, touch and chemical reactions (taste)
The mind turns coded electrical signals into 'internal pictures'.... just like
a computer monitor does.
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: "bz" |
|
| Title: Re: Catch some slow photons? |
26 Jun 2005 12:09:36 PM |
|
|
H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in
news:53srb11njiugp0bu4koo2jr3clchrl45l0@4ax.com:
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 01:03:35 +0000 (UTC), bz
<bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote:
H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in
news:3eemb1l4r8sprpjndaog72u9etq99f14le@4ax.com:
On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 11:46:45 +0000 (UTC), bz
<bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote:
H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:562lb1tqtqcc7oilai7kkq651nvefp8h6b@
4ax.com:
On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 02:19:09 +0000 (UTC), bz
<bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote:
H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in
news:5s5hb19is2nlhjg7b9m4r0pf66e6v4rk0k@4ax.com:
.....
Entropy is expressed in Joules per kelvin
or BTU per degree F
http://www.efunda.com/units/show_units.cfm?Alfa=no&String1=Entropy&Stri
ng 2 =Entropy
Do you see the 'T'?
NOPE. Joules/K
Joules are energy dimensions ML^2T^-2
there is your 'T'
As I said, you can express anything in terms of anything.
Joules can be expressed in terms of time, that doesn't mean it IS time.
.....
Correct. No fundamental dimensions can be defined.
They just ARE.
They can all be expressed in terms of other 'fundamental dimensions'.
In fact, the choice of which are 'fundamental' is arbitrary.
You are confusing 'describing' and 'evaluating' with 'defining'.
Not at all. We choose certain things as fundamental because it makes the life
of the scientist easier. But rather than mass, we could have used momentum
as a fundamental. In fact, had we lived all of our lives in free fall, we
would probably use different 'fundamental' units.
No it isn't.
You are getting confused between a 'definition' and a 'reference
standard'.
No. It is DEFINED.
The speed of light has been DEFINED as a certain number of meters per
second. A definition is an internationally agreed upon DEFINITION.
That is the 'speed of light wrt its source', of course. You are 100%
correct. 'c' is a fundamental constant.
The definition does not specify wrt its source.
On NPR, last week, they were discussing the speed of light. A caller
explained that the way he understood how the speed of light could be constant
wrt everything was one simple question:
"Once the photon is emitted, it can't remember the speed of it's source. It
also can't know the speed of its destination. So it MUST travel at c with
respect to all."
Interesting reasoning.
Length as the distance between two points...but you can't use
'length' or 'distance' in any definition of space.
NOTHING can be defined without using things that are related to the
thing being defined.
Then you have circularity.
Once a set of fundamental units are picked, everything else is expressed
in terms of them.
But you cannot 'define' any without circularity..
define 'define' without circularity.
Strangely, temperature doesn't have prescribed 'MLT' dimensions.
Temperature can be expressed in terms of average kinetic energy of
molecules. Average kinetic energy can be expressed in terms of mass,
length and time.
Whatever its value, it turns out to be a dimensionless ratio.
Where did you get THAT idea?
Take PV=nRT and put in P=1 atm, V=22.4 L/mol, n=1 mol,
R=8.314510*joule/(mol K, solve for T)
T comes out dimensionless. R makes it so.
nope, you get
T/degK = 2.69408 atm liter/(joule mol)
.....
You see, it is no good just saying "blue is the colour of the sky" or
"blue is the colour of light with certain wavelengths" because
although that definition allows us to consistently agree on what
objects are blue, there is no way of knowing if your 'blue' is also
'my blue'. My 'blue' might be your 'red' for all we know.
I doubt it, unless one of us is color blind. Of course, until we can
read someones mind we can't know what they actually see, but we don't
even know they exist. You can go 'into that kind of thinking' so deeply
that you stop believing in reality.
Safer to assume that there is a reality and that most people see it
close enough to the same to be able to communicate and work together
some times.
We probably all see the same visual images because we share common
genes... that is only an assumption though.
I tend to agree with you.
Color is not a property of the viewed object. It is psychological. So
perhaps are our interpretations of time and space.
If you think too much about thinking, you can go crazy.
haven't so far.
Always good to get an expert opinion.
.....
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: Catch some slow photons? |
26 Jun 2005 06:44:21 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 17:09:36 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu>
wrote:
H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in
news:53srb11njiugp0bu4koo2jr3clchrl45l0@4ax.com:
Correct. No fundamental dimensions can be defined.
They just ARE.
They can all be expressed in terms of other 'fundamental dimensions'.
In fact, the choice of which are 'fundamental' is arbitrary.
You are confusing 'describing' and 'evaluating' with 'defining'.
Not at all. We choose certain things as fundamental because it makes the life
of the scientist easier. But rather than mass, we could have used momentum
as a fundamental. In fact, had we lived all of our lives in free fall, we
would probably use different 'fundamental' units.
that's an interesting thought.
We would probably regard force quite differently...and we would have great
difficulty understanding why planets orbited suns.
But I think we would eventually get around to the same picture we have now.
No it isn't.
You are getting confused between a 'definition' and a 'reference
standard'.
No. It is DEFINED.
The speed of light has been DEFINED as a certain number of meters per
second. A definition is an internationally agreed upon DEFINITION.
That is the 'speed of light wrt its source', of course. You are 100%
correct. 'c' is a fundamental constant.
The definition does not specify wrt its source.
That's why the definition is useless.
On NPR, last week, they were discussing the speed of light. A caller
explained that the way he understood how the speed of light could be constant
wrt everything was one simple question:
"Once the photon is emitted, it can't remember the speed of it's source. It
also can't know the speed of its destination. So it MUST travel at c with
respect to all."
Interesting reasoning.
Then how does it 'know' how much to doppler shift when it arrives at an
arbitrary observer?
I asked this question several years ago...you should have read the nonsense
replies from the SRians then.
I pointed out that either space is absolute and the photon carries its source
parameters along with it or, more likely, the photon speed is c+v wrt the
observer.
The BaT provides such simple explanations to everything, eh, Bob?
Once a set of fundamental units are picked, everything else is expressed
in terms of them.
But you cannot 'define' any without circularity..
define 'define' without circularity.
That backfired.
Take PV=nRT and put in P=1 atm, V=22.4 L/mol, n=1 mol,
R=8.314510*joule/(mol K, solve for T)
T comes out dimensionless. R makes it so.
nope, you get
T/degK = 2.69408 atm liter/(joule mol)
T comes out dimensionless.
I doubt it, unless one of us is color blind. Of course, until we can
read someones mind we can't know what they actually see, but we don't
even know they exist. You can go 'into that kind of thinking' so deeply
that you stop believing in reality.
Safer to assume that there is a reality and that most people see it
close enough to the same to be able to communicate and work together
some times.
We probably all see the same visual images because we share common
genes... that is only an assumption though.
I tend to agree with you.
Color is not a property of the viewed object. It is psychological. So
perhaps are our interpretations of time and space.
If you think too much about thinking, you can go crazy.
haven't so far.
Always good to get an expert opinion.
....
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: "bz" |
|
| Title: Re: Catch some slow photons? |
26 Jun 2005 07:48:45 PM |
|
|
H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in
news:greub151akrfcaj3bbv2lohbfgqfiep9hu@4ax.com:
On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 17:09:36 +0000 (UTC), bz
<bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote:
H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in
news:53srb11njiugp0bu4koo2jr3clchrl45l0@4ax.com:
Correct. No fundamental dimensions can be defined.
They just ARE.
They can all be expressed in terms of other 'fundamental dimensions'.
In fact, the choice of which are 'fundamental' is arbitrary.
You are confusing 'describing' and 'evaluating' with 'defining'.
Not at all. We choose certain things as fundamental because it makes the
life of the scientist easier. But rather than mass, we could have used
momentum as a fundamental. In fact, had we lived all of our lives in
free fall, we would probably use different 'fundamental' units.
that's an interesting thought.
We would probably regard force quite differently...and we would have
great difficulty understanding why planets orbited suns.
No, we would have a very good understanding of orbital parameters.
We would have a hard time playing baseball while under gravity or
accelleration, however.
But I think we would eventually get around to the same picture we have
now.
Physics would be based on different experiments.
Read Niven's Integral Trees novels.
No it isn't.
You are getting confused between a 'definition' and a 'reference
standard'.
No. It is DEFINED.
The speed of light has been DEFINED as a certain number of meters per
second. A definition is an internationally agreed upon DEFINITION.
That is the 'speed of light wrt its source', of course. You are 100%
correct. 'c' is a fundamental constant.
The definition does not specify wrt its source.
That's why the definition is useless.
The definition specifies wrt everything, which includes its source.
On NPR, last week, they were discussing the speed of light. A caller
explained that the way he understood how the speed of light could be
constant wrt everything was one simple question:
"Once the photon is emitted, it can't remember the speed of it's source.
It also can't know the speed of its destination. So it MUST travel at c
with respect to all."
Interesting reasoning.
Then how does it 'know' how much to doppler shift when it arrives at an
arbitrary observer?
Good question.
Maybe Wolff is right and every particle's wave function interacts with the
wave function of every other particle in the universe. A kind of aetherless
aether.
I asked this question several years ago...you should have read the
nonsense replies from the SRians then.
I pointed out that either space is absolute and the photon carries its
source parameters along with it or, more likely, the photon speed is c+v
wrt the observer.
The BaT provides such simple explanations to everything, eh, Bob?
It would be nice if it were that simple.
Once a set of fundamental units are picked, everything else is
expressed in terms of them.
But you cannot 'define' any without circularity..
define 'define' without circularity.
That backfired.
:)
Take PV=nRT and put in P=1 atm, V=22.4 L/mol, n=1 mol,
R=8.314510*joule/(mol K, solve for T)
T comes out dimensionless. R makes it so.
nope, you get
T/degK = 2.69408 atm liter/(joule mol)
T comes out dimensionless.
I showed you the units. Why do you keep saying it comes out unitless?
1 atm x 22.4 Ltr/mol = 1 mol x 8.314510*joule/(mol degK) x T
the moles in the denominator on both sides cancel
1 atm x 22.4 ltr = 1 mol x 8.314510 x joule/degK x T
divide both sides by 1 mol x 8.314510
1 atm x 22.4 ltr/(8.314510 joule mol) = T/degK
which can be simplified to
T/degK = 2.69408 atm liter/(joule mol)
this shows that T [in the form of T/degK] can be expressed in terms of ltr
atm/(mol joule)
Did I make any mistakes in my algebra?
.....
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: Catch some slow photons? |
27 Jun 2005 05:23:17 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 00:48:45 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu>
wrote:
H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in
news:greub151akrfcaj3bbv2lohbfgqfiep9hu@4ax.com:
No it isn't.
You are getting confused between a 'definition' and a 'reference
standard'.
No. It is DEFINED.
The speed of light has been DEFINED as a certain number of meters per
second. A definition is an internationally agreed upon DEFINITION.
That is the 'speed of light wrt its source', of course. You are 100%
correct. 'c' is a fundamental constant.
The definition does not specify wrt its source.
That's why the definition is useless.
The definition specifies wrt everything, which includes its source.
That kind of thing only happens in fairyland.
On NPR, last week, they were discussing the speed of light. A caller
explained that the way he understood how the speed of light could be
constant wrt everything was one simple question:
"Once the photon is emitted, it can't remember the speed of it's source.
It also can't know the speed of its destination. So it MUST travel at c
with respect to all."
Interesting reasoning.
Then how does it 'know' how much to doppler shift when it arrives at an
arbitrary observer?
Good question.
Maybe Wolff is right and every particle's wave function interacts with the
wave function of every other particle in the universe. A kind of aetherless
aether.
I asked this question several years ago...you should have read the
nonsense replies from the SRians then.
I pointed out that either space is absolute and the photon carries its
source parameters along with it or, more likely, the photon speed is c+v
wrt the observer.
The BaT provides such simple explanations to everything, eh, Bob?
It would be nice if it were that simple.
Once a set of fundamental units are picked, everything else is
expressed in terms of them.
But you cannot 'define' any without circularity..
define 'define' without circularity.
That backfired.
:)
Take PV=nRT and put in P=1 atm, V=22.4 L/mol, n=1 mol,
R=8.314510*joule/(mol K, solve for T)
T comes out dimensionless. R makes it so.
nope, you get
T/degK = 2.69408 atm liter/(joule mol)
T comes out dimensionless.
I showed you the units. Why do you keep saying it comes out unitless?
1 atm x 22.4 Ltr/mol = 1 mol x 8.314510*joule/(mol degK) x T
the moles in the denominator on both sides cancel
1 atm x 22.4 ltr = 1 mol x 8.314510 x joule/degK x T
divide both sides by 1 mol x 8.314510
1 atm x 22.4 ltr/(8.314510 joule mol) = T/degK
which can be simplified to
T/degK = 2.69408 atm liter/(joule mol)
this shows that T [in the form of T/degK] can be expressed in terms of ltr
atm/(mol joule)
=L^3(volume).MLT^-2/L^2(pressure/ML^2T^-2(energy)
=1
note: moles are expresed as a dimensionless number.
Did I make any mistakes in my algebra?
No. you simply don't understand what dimensions | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
