| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Spaceman" |
| Date: |
14 Feb 2006 06:44:23 PM |
| Object: |
The speed of light revisited |
Ok,
I will admit light always leaves it source at c.
(sound always leaves it source the same way)
But how can a lightsource's light be constant
to say an object traveling towards it at 0.5c.
Let's say a lightsource is here on Earth.
so it is in a rest frame WRT to Earth,
and light moving away from such a source
is traveling at c outward from it.
How could such a lightspeed still be the same speed
to an object heading towards it at 0.5c?
How can light violate relative motion like that?
.
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light revisited |
14 Feb 2006 08:50:25 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:6Oudne9F2vrC5G_eRVn-tg@comcast.com...
| Ok,
| I will admit light always leaves it source at c.
| (sound always leaves it source the same way)
|
| But how can a lightsource's light be constant
| to say an object traveling towards it at 0.5c.
|
| Let's say a lightsource is here on Earth.
| so it is in a rest frame WRT to Earth,
| and light moving away from such a source
| is traveling at c outward from it.
I am adding something to this that I forgot to add.
:)
Along the path towards the lightsource is a platform
that is moving ahead of Earth but it moving
the same as Earth as to cause a 0 relative
speed WRT to Earth.
Now as the object that is heading towards Earth
is reading the lightsource, it is passing this platform
that is "at rest" WRT to Earth and it is also taking
measurements of the lightsource and this platform is
detecting no change in wavelength at all. (of course)
so....
How could such a lightspeed from the source on Earth
be the same speed to the object heading towards it at 0.5c?
and how could the wavelength change without the relative
speed being the cause.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Neill" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light revisited |
14 Feb 2006 11:33:45 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message news:hKednTiBQcF0C2_eRVn-vQ@comcast.com...
How could such a lightspeed from the source on Earth
be the same speed to the object heading towards it at 0.5c?
and how could the wavelength change without the relative
speed being the cause.
The short answer is time and length dilation between
frames of reference.
The long answer will probably be several days of
"Is not", "Is so", "That's *****", and "You're
arguing with empirical facts". I wonder if we
shouldn't just skip to the end?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light revisited |
15 Feb 2006 10:17:11 AM |
|
|
"Greg Neill" <gneillREM@OVE.THIS.netcom.ca> wrote in message
news:w2zIf.26300$T35.449570@news20.bellglobal.com...
| "Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:hKednTiBQcF0C2_eRVn-vQ@comcast.com...
|
| > How could such a lightspeed from the source on Earth
| > be the same speed to the object heading towards it at 0.5c?
| > and how could the wavelength change without the relative
| > speed being the cause.
|
| The short answer is time and length dilation between
| frames of reference.
Can't be,
I added the platform that proves that length contraction
is not happening at the point of measure.
and time dilation is a clock malfunction so it is a complete
joke to use at all.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Neill" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light revisited |
15 Feb 2006 10:49:46 AM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message news:aMWdnW0_mpphzm7eRVn-vw@comcast.com...
"Greg Neill" <gneillREM@OVE.THIS.netcom.ca> wrote in message
news:w2zIf.26300$T35.449570@news20.bellglobal.com...
| "Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:hKednTiBQcF0C2_eRVn-vQ@comcast.com...
|
| > How could such a lightspeed from the source on Earth
| > be the same speed to the object heading towards it at 0.5c?
| > and how could the wavelength change without the relative
| > speed being the cause.
|
| The short answer is time and length dilation between
| frames of reference.
Can't be,
I added the platform that proves that length contraction
is not happening at the point of measure.
and time dilation is a clock malfunction so it is a complete
joke to use at all.
Your platform is not moving w.r.t. the source,
so there's no dilation effect to account for.
Dilation is an observer dependent effect.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "oriel36" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light revisited |
15 Feb 2006 07:14:30 AM |
|
|
James
You left the original reasoning of Copernicus which would have given
you the answer you needed.As planetary heliocentric motion is seen
directly from Earth then so is the noticeable effect due to finite
light distance.Becasue Newton jumped to the Sun in his misguided
attempt to resolve why the planets appeared to move backwards against
the background stars he cuts out the ability to understand how the
original determination of finite light distance was seen and understood
through the motion of the Earth against Jupiter and its moon Io -
"For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are
always seen direct, and to proceed with a motion nearly uniform, that
is to say, a little swifter in the perihelion and a little slower in
the aphelion distances, so as to maintain an equality in the
description of the areas. This a noted proposition among astronomers,
and particularly demonstrable in Jupiter, from the eclipses of his
satellites; by the help of which eclipses, as we have said, the
heliocentric longitudes of that planet, and its distances from the sun,
are determined."
http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/phaenomena.htm
I do not expect anybody to immediately get how Newton mangled the
original Copernican insight with the Roemerian insight to come up with
that mess as none of you ever really developed a feel for the
astronomical material but bounce of each other with 'facts' that are
neither good nor right.
Not one person James,not one single person has bothered to acknowledge
that absolute/relative space is exactly where Newton went wrong but in
terms of how he explained or attempted to explain Copernican
heliocentricity.Even with the heliocentric time lapse footage,the
explanations of Galileo,Copernicus and Kepler before you,you would
still prefer to taunt each other and travel in the same pointless
circle or that you would find it so easy to disregard the person who
can point out exactly where the differences exist.
Nobody likes to be lectured to James and certainly not me however what
can be said of the original works of Copernicus and its later
refinements by Kepler and Roemer that were destroyed in such an
obviouis way by Newton.I have done nothing but promote a favorable
account of the reasoning behind heliocentricity as Copernicus presented
it against the rubbish of Newton.Without the correct view you can
relative and absolute yourselves into oblivion,it will always be empty
as you propose it but workable as the Newtonian flaw.
Easy taunting these guys who know no better James but perhaps before
you continue to do it maybe you will find yourself developing the same
tactics they use to cover the fact that they have little interest in
the astronomical material.Again,had you stuck with the resolution for
Copernican heliocentricity you would have had your answer and be using
the insight for productive ends.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light revisited |
15 Feb 2006 11:40:52 AM |
|
|
"oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1140009270.776546.49500@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
| James
|
| You left the original reasoning of Copernicus which would have given
| you the answer you needed.As planetary heliocentric motion is seen
| directly from Earth then so is the noticeable effect due to finite
| light distance.Becasue Newton jumped to the Sun in his misguided
| attempt to resolve why the planets appeared to move backwards against
| the background stars he cuts out the ability to understand how the
| original determination of finite light distance was seen and understood
| through the motion of the Earth against Jupiter and its moon Io -
|
| "For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
| stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are
| always seen direct, and to proceed with a motion nearly uniform, that
| is to say, a little swifter in the perihelion and a little slower in
| the aphelion distances, so as to maintain an equality in the
| description of the areas. This a noted proposition among astronomers,
| and particularly demonstrable in Jupiter, from the eclipses of his
| satellites; by the help of which eclipses, as we have said, the
| heliocentric longitudes of that planet, and its distances from the sun,
| are determined."
|
| http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/phaenomena.htm
|
| I do not expect anybody to immediately get how Newton mangled the
| original Copernican insight with the Roemerian insight to come up with
| that mess as none of you ever really developed a feel for the
| astronomical material but bounce of each other with 'facts' that are
| neither good nor right.
|
| Not one person James,not one single person has bothered to acknowledge
| that absolute/relative space is exactly where Newton went wrong but in
| terms of how he explained or attempted to explain Copernican
| heliocentricity.Even with the heliocentric time lapse footage,the
| explanations of Galileo,Copernicus and Kepler before you,you would
| still prefer to taunt each other and travel in the same pointless
| circle or that you would find it so easy to disregard the person who
| can point out exactly where the differences exist.
|
| Nobody likes to be lectured to James and certainly not me however what
| can be said of the original works of Copernicus and its later
| refinements by Kepler and Roemer that were destroyed in such an
| obviouis way by Newton.I have done nothing but promote a favorable
| account of the reasoning behind heliocentricity as Copernicus presented
| it against the rubbish of Newton.Without the correct view you can
| relative and absolute yourselves into oblivion,it will always be empty
| as you propose it but workable as the Newtonian flaw.
|
| Easy taunting these guys who know no better James but perhaps before
| you continue to do it maybe you will find yourself developing the same
| tactics they use to cover the fact that they have little interest in
| the astronomical material.Again,had you stuck with the resolution for
| Copernican heliocentricity you would have had your answer and be using
| the insight for productive ends.
I find it hard to believe the amount of brainwashing that has occured
in most relativists and of course I would have to gather some occured to me
about Newton.
If you could explain a bit more about what you mean to me,
maybe I can break my "brainwashing" and I will listen to you
since I do respect your thoughts as being out of the box and yet, still
real.
:)
.
|
|
|
| User: "oriel36" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light revisited |
16 Feb 2006 01:01:33 PM |
|
|
Let us talk like men for a change and set aside lectures and things
like that.
It is common and even advantageous for people to argue over things like
aether and relativity while keeping clear of the earlier theorists such
as Newton and even if they do believe they altered Newton's ideas in
the 20th century perhaps only now do they realise that they are
really highlighting his errors.
Newton provided a local solution for the behavior of the planets around
the Sun that seemed to work by overlaying the idea of the behavior of
objects on Earth to that of planets around the Sun.An object thrown in
the air will slow down,stop and return with increasing speed to the
ground hence it seemed like he had the answer to Keplerian motion -
http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronomy/fix/student/images/04f15.jpg
By giving a solution which isolates the solar system and works on the
distances between the Sun and the planets * rather than comparing
orbital geometries between Earth and Mars as Kepler used,he painted
everyone into a corner in such a way that they have to continually
invent imaginary forces to explain larger structures and motions beyond
the solar system,things such as dark matter for one thing and dark
energy for something else.
There is nothing they can do because they now have 3 centuries of
flawed Newtonian/Flamsteed principles working against change like a
ship with a small rudder steaming towards an iceberg ,the terror in not
just being unable to change course is matched by the inevitability of
a disater by the fundamental flaws built into empirical design.
There is also very little I can do except at least call attension to
where the misjudgements occured and especially at the Newtonian
quasi-geocentric resolution for plotted retrogrades,not just
catastrophic for Copernican heliocentricity but far inferior to even
the Ptolemaic concepts.
Everything can wait until it is recognised that the original ballistic
agenda was flawed from the outset and far from a dismal situation where
nothing can be salvaged,a more balanced and productive approach to not
just heliocentric motion but the influence of the solar system's
galactic orbital motion on heliocentric motion can begin.It is well
worth it.
* "PH=C6NOMENON V.
Then the primary planets, by radii drawn to the earth, describe areas
no wise proportional to the times; but that the areas which they
describe by radii drawn to the sun are proportional to the times of
description."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light revisited |
17 Feb 2006 12:17:17 PM |
|
|
Dear Gerald,
Well, here I go..
:)
Looking closer at
http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronomy/fix/student/images/04f15.jpg
and thinking about the motion of the sun itself.
It would seem that the shorter distance would have to occur
in the "behind the directional motion"
If the Sun were moving towards the orbital in the behind motion,
there is no way the orbital could stay in orbit,
so looking at the Keplerian motion one would have to conclude
the motion of the object being orbited would have to be in
a direction of the furthest orbital point in order for the orbit
to be kept as an orbit at all.
so...
If any laws of gravitation are correct at all,
the physical "absolute motion" of the sun could be predicted
I would think?.
:)
.
|
|
|
| User: "oriel36" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light revisited |
18 Feb 2006 05:02:00 AM |
|
|
I have little problem with the Newtonians/relativists for their
doctrine is actually specific even if it is incorrect however your
bluffing I can do without.You are on your own James so good luck.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light revisited |
18 Feb 2006 05:26:28 PM |
|
|
"oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1140258377.479271.154540@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I have little problem with the Newtonians/relativists for their
doctrine is actually specific even if it is incorrect however your
bluffing I can do without.You are on your own James so good luck.
I am sorry I do not get what you are wanting me to understand
Gerald.
I don't get what you mean about me bluffing either.
:(
.
|
|
|
| User: "oriel36" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light revisited |
19 Feb 2006 05:05:41 AM |
|
|
James
Every single day I come here in an effort to restore a specific
astronomical heritage that was destroyed by 17th century tampering,I do
it for people who cannot defend themselves against the bluffing and
blustering of people who themselves may not wish to continue in this
disgraceful manner.I do not need emoticons,I do not need to 'shout',I
can do without the effiminate taunting and baiting however I most
certainly require that at least a few can acknowledge some of the
various astronomical working principles which will spare children from
being turned off astronomy or being fed utter nonsense.
In your absence (which I well understood),I presented the impossibility
to linking an 'aether' with the conception of Newtonian 'absolute
space' and was genuinely surprised with what the participants did
next.Instead of going back to Newton and to find out what he was
actually doing they tried to boost the mid-19th century aether theories
and diminish Newton's contribution to the early 20th century
conceptions thereby making relativity appear less bogus.They have been
unsuccessful as the 'genius' of the early 20th century concepts is the
feedback loop to Newtonian astronomical conceptions which they cannot
get from aether alone.
Perhaps I should not have been surprised as the early 20th century
concepts represent a struggle to free themselves from Newtonian
astronomical conceptions of time and space but unfortunately they went
in the wrong direction and put the Newtonian quasi-geocentricity in a
bigger can of relativistic homocentricity - the ultimate offence to the
astronomical cycles which condition our lives as much as our views.
Nobody has gained a sense of relief from finally understanding what
the Newtonian absolute and relative space represents in terms of
Copernican heliocentric reasoning and why it is lethal,not only to the
original insight, but also to the refinements such as Keplerian
orbital geometry and the Roemerian insight on finite light speed.I
insist that none of it is difficult once a person genuinely immerses
themselves in how heliocentricity replaced Ptolemaic geocentricity.
I do not expect or require anyone to go through the correct
Copernican/Keplerian reasoning and compare it with the reasoning of
Newton for as far as I am concerned,theorists have a niche to fill that
does not involve the astronomical discernment or 'contemplative
astronomy' as Kepler phrased it *.The point of departure for theorists
is undoing the original Newtonian ballistic agenda applied to planetary
motion for this is where the 'scientific method' originally bit off
more than it could chew and especially with 17th century observational
data.
The scientific method was what relativity tried to save or at least
that is what the proponents had come to understand it.With an enormous
amount of observational data pouring in I have no doubt that genuine
theorists will abandon the empirical rudder which steers their concepts
to more exotic and worthless ends but this time I would hope they
would consult with a 'contemplative astronomer '.
* "To set down in books the apparent paths of the planets [vias
planetarum apparentes] and the record of their motions is especially
the task of the practical and mechanical part of astronomy; to discover
their true and genuine path [vias vero veras et genuinas] is . . .the
task of contemplative astronomy; while to say by what circle and lines
correct images of those true motions may be depicted on paper is the
concern of the inferior tribunal of geometers"
Kepler 'Mysterium Cosmographicum'
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light revisited |
19 Feb 2006 08:42:46 AM |
|
|
oriel36 wrote:
James
Every single day I come here in an effort to restore a specific
astronomical heritage that was destroyed by 17th century tampering,I do
it for people who cannot defend themselves against...
Actually Kelleher does it because he is incapable of understanding
classical mechanics.
.
|
|
|
| User: "oriel36" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light revisited |
21 Feb 2006 12:30:33 PM |
|
|
Sam
I do not need to do anything except edit and condense the material and
present it to responsible people.
I was surprised to see those with intelligence take the route of
boosting aether theories to facilitate relativity when Newton is far
more interesting in his maneuverings.
When men actually stand a chance of explaining the influences acting on
planetary heliocentric motion and Keplerian geometry with 21st century
data they still run back to Newton's quasi-geocentric conceptions and
especially his false version of the resolution for plotted retrogrades.
Even if you can live with knowing the the empirical method was flawed
at its foundations it does actually represent an enormous waste of time
..In this current vacuum,more responsible people may find themselves
interested in what is correct,what went wrong and the very important
reasons for setting it right again.You and your colleagues can enjoy ad
hoc solutions for cosmological structure and motion as an inheritance
from Newton and pretend that the rest of humanity cares.
This will however care about this when it is explained correctly -
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light revisited |
21 Feb 2006 12:52:38 PM |
|
|
oriel36 wrote:
Sam
I do not need to do anything except edit and condense the material and
present it to responsible people.
I was surprised to see those with intelligence take the route of
boosting aether theories to facilitate relativity when Newton is far
more interesting in his maneuverings.
When men actually stand a chance of explaining the influences acting on
planetary heliocentric motion and Keplerian geometry with 21st century
data they still run back to Newton's quasi-geocentric conceptions and
especially his false version of the resolution for plotted retrogrades.
Even if you can live with knowing the the empirical method was flawed
at its foundations it does actually represent an enormous waste of time
.In this current vacuum,more responsible people may find themselves
interested in what is correct,what went wrong and the very important
reasons for setting it right again.You and your colleagues can enjoy ad
hoc solutions for cosmological structure and motion as an inheritance
from Newton and pretend that the rest of humanity cares.
This will however care about this when it is explained correctly -
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
Some how you have gotten stuck, Kelleher. The physics world has
harvested the contribution of Kepler and Newton and others... and
are not concerned with errors and misconceptions they might have
had or made, other than historically.
We have these wonderful tools and make fruitful use of them. They
include, but are not limited to
o classical mechanics
o special relativity
o general relativity
o quantum mechanics
-- QED
-- QFT
-- QCD
.
|
|
|
| User: "oriel36" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light revisited |
22 Feb 2006 04:29:04 AM |
|
|
Sorry to say Sam that Newton misjudged plotted retrogrades as
geocentric when the plotted data was common to both Ptolemaics and
Copernican astronomers,it was the conclusions that differed insofar as
the Ptolemaics rendered the data as periodic looping motions while the
Copernicans correctly identified the data as the orbital motion of the
Earth -
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html
Even that excellent explanation above is infected with the Newtonian
conception yet I am getting ahead of myself here and require the people
appreceate how Ptolemaic and Copernican astronomers share the same
plotted retrograde data but differ in their conclusions.
I suspect that more than a few people would be relieved to finally know
what Newton actually meant by absolute/relative space and I am
presenting this as a courtesy extended to people who are wasting their
time pursuing ad hoc solutions to which Newtonian conceptions tend when
they have now productive working principles to actually begin applying
influences acting on planetary motion.
There is nothing wonderful or fruitful with your list,it represents the
expansion of the Newtonian error to its logical conclusion,ad hoc
individual solutions with no roots.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light revisited |
18 Feb 2006 08:10:24 AM |
|
|
oriel36 wrote:
I have little problem with the Newtonians/relativists for their
doctrine is actually specific even if it is incorrect however your
bluffing I can do without.You are on your own James so good luck.
What! One crank abandoning another in their battle against
learning!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Anders" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light revisited |
17 Feb 2006 02:46:38 AM |
|
|
Spaceman skrev:
Ok,
I will admit light always leaves it source at c.
(sound always leaves it source the same way)
But how can a lightsource's light be constant
to say an object traveling towards it at 0.5c.
Let's say a lightsource is here on Earth.
so it is in a rest frame WRT to Earth,
and light moving away from such a source
is traveling at c outward from it.
How could such a lightspeed still be the same speed
to an object heading towards it at 0.5c?
How can light violate relative motion like that?
I suspect, and this only a speculation (my knowledge about physics
sucks :), that the maximum velocity in relation to space (the quantum
soup) is c, the speed of light, but that the maximum velocity for
massless particles in relation to each other is 2*c, twice the speed of
light.
al.
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light revisited |
17 Feb 2006 07:48:11 AM |
|
|
Anders wrote:
Spaceman skrev:
Ok,
I will admit light always leaves it source at c.
(sound always leaves it source the same way)
But how can a lightsource's light be constant
to say an object traveling towards it at 0.5c.
Let's say a lightsource is here on Earth.
so it is in a rest frame WRT to Earth,
and light moving away from such a source
is traveling at c outward from it.
How could such a lightspeed still be the same speed
to an object heading towards it at 0.5c?
How can light violate relative motion like that?
I suspect, and this only a speculation (my knowledge about physics
sucks :), that the maximum velocity in relation to space (the quantum
soup) is c, the speed of light, but that the maximum velocity for
massless particles in relation to each other is 2*c, twice the speed of
light.
al.
It is certainly possible for one observer to see two objects with a
"closing speed" (in this case, opening speed, really) of up to 2c.
However, either one of the objects will not see the other object recede
any faster than c.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light revisited |
17 Feb 2006 10:08:40 AM |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140184091.702588.215940@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
It is certainly possible for one observer to see two objects with a
"closing speed" (in this case, opening speed, really) of up to 2c.
However, either one of the objects will not see the other object recede
any faster than c.
How about a receding speed of 2c?
what would they "see" then?
LOL
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Ejercito" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light revisited |
18 Feb 2006 01:33:24 PM |
|
|
Spaceman wrote:
Ok,
I will admit light always leaves it source at c.
(sound always leaves it source the same way)
But how can a lightsource's light be constant
to say an object traveling towards it at 0.5c.
The object traveling aT half the speed of light towards Earth
contracts in length and in time, so the object would measure the speed
of light to be c.
Michael
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light revisited |
18 Feb 2006 02:18:32 PM |
|
|
"Michael Ejercito" <mejercit@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140291204.142654.135530@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Spaceman wrote:
Ok,
I will admit light always leaves it source at c.
(sound always leaves it source the same way)
But how can a lightsource's light be constant
to say an object traveling towards it at 0.5c.
The object traveling aT half the speed of light towards Earth
contracts in length and in time, so the object would measure the speed
of light to be c.
There is no physical proof of physical length contraction at all..
It was added for a stupid cause of time dilation effects
instead of admitting the clocks mafunctioned.
and looking for such malfunction.
The wavelength should not change length for no physical reason
and especially not for time dilation reasons.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Cain" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light revisited |
14 Feb 2006 07:45:12 PM |
|
|
Spaceman wrote:
Ok,
I will admit light always leaves it source at c.
(sound always leaves it source the same way)
But how can a lightsource's light be constant
to say an object traveling towards it at 0.5c.
Let's say a lightsource is here on Earth.
so it is in a rest frame WRT to Earth,
and light moving away from such a source
is traveling at c outward from it.
How could such a lightspeed still be the same speed
to an object heading towards it at 0.5c?
How can light violate relative motion like that?
How indeed. It just doesn't seem right given our day to day experience.
Nonetheless if that highly counterintuitive behavior is taken as a
postulate along with another, that the laws of physics are the same in
all inertial coordinate systems, then a set of equations logically
follows, the Lorentz transformation, which predict all the data from
experiments designed and executed so far to test their physical validity
as well as matching all astronomical observations. Go figure.
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
A. Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light revisited |
14 Feb 2006 08:15:49 PM |
|
|
"Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
news:dsu13n0lfg@enews2.newsguy.com...
| How indeed. It just doesn't seem right given our day to day experience.
| Nonetheless if that highly counterintuitive behavior is taken as a
| postulate along with another, that the laws of physics are the same in
| all inertial coordinate systems, then a set of equations logically
| follows, the Lorentz transformation, which predict all the data from
| experiments designed and executed so far to test their physical validity
| as well as matching all astronomical observations. Go figure.
So you are saying a contraction of what is occuring?
the waves?
How could it be the waves contracting and only contracting to fit
the observers speed towards the light source?
and not contracting to something that the observer was passing
on the way towards the lightsource?
You seem to have rubber waves that just "expand or contract"
for any certain observer?
Your Length contraction explanation is total crap in the case
I stated.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Cain" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light revisited |
15 Feb 2006 03:06:48 AM |
|
|
Spaceman wrote:
"Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
news:dsu13n0lfg@enews2.newsguy.com...
| How indeed. It just doesn't seem right given our day to day experience.
| Nonetheless if that highly counterintuitive behavior is taken as a
| postulate along with another, that the laws of physics are the same in
| all inertial coordinate systems, then a set of equations logically
| follows, the Lorentz transformation, which predict all the data from
| experiments designed and executed so far to test their physical validity
| as well as matching all astronomical observations. Go figure.
So you are saying a contraction of what is occuring?
Gosh, I don't think that's what I said whatever it might mean.
the waves?
The waves?
How could it be the waves contracting and only contracting to fit
the observers speed towards the light source?
Waves contracting?
and not contracting to something that the observer was passing
on the way towards the lightsource?
Huh?
You seem to have rubber waves that just "expand or contract"
for any certain observer?
Really? Where?
Your Length contraction explanation is total crap in the case
I stated.
Did I say "length contraction"?
Sorry, I can't recognize anything I said in what you responded with.
Here's one for ya. What's the frequency of an oscillating EM field
propagating in space? How would you measure it? Ken, you might want to
chime in on this one too.
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
A. Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light revisited |
15 Feb 2006 10:15:02 AM |
|
|
"Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
news:dsuqv90203h@enews2.newsguy.com...
| Did I say "length contraction"?
Not exactally, but you mention Lorentz and that is close enough.
That is where any Lorentz crap is going to.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Orion" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light revisited |
15 Feb 2006 06:26:25 AM |
|
|
Is sun radiation composed of photons? If it is, then they are not
neutral.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light revisited |
15 Feb 2006 07:16:07 AM |
|
|
Orion wrote:
Is sun radiation composed of photons? If it is, then they are not
neutral.
Danny--In USENET you need to a least quote who you are replying to
to give some context!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Orion" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light revisited |
15 Feb 2006 07:03:46 AM |
|
|
Is the sun radiation made of photons? If it is, then they are not
neutral.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Orion" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light revisited |
15 Feb 2006 07:17:24 AM |
|
|
Is the sun radiation made of photons? If it is, then they are not
neutral. It seems more like the sun's radiation builds matter.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light revisited |
15 Feb 2006 07:37:13 AM |
|
|
Orion wrote:
Is the sun radiation made of photons? If it is, then they are not
neutral. It seems more like the sun's radiation builds matter.
The sun is made of hydrogen, helium and a few per cent other elements.
The original gravitational collapse heated the gas... kinetic energy
was great enough for nuclear fusion (pp-chain) to begin and sustain
itself.
See: http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronomy/fix/student/chapter17/17f02.html
The Sun's primary energy source is the p-p chain whereby helium is
fused from hydrogen in the core of our sun. Density, pressure and
temperature profiles, solar neutrino (anti neutrino) energies and total
radiated energy confirm the standard solar model.
Density, pressure an temperature profiles are measured by analysis
of the Sun's vibration modes, rates, etc.
The [once] Solar Neutrino Problem Has Been Closed
http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2002/split/586-1.html
PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE
The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Physics News
Number 617 December 13, 2002 by Phillip F. Schewe, Ben Stein, and James
Riordon
PHYSICS STORIES OF 2002. The top two physics stories for the past 12
months were the total accounting of neutrinos from the sun by the Sudbury
Neutrino Observatory (SNO), thus solving the solar neutrino problem (Update
586; www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2002/split/586-1.html); and the formation
and detection of antihydrogen atoms at CERN (Updates 605 and 611,
www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2002/split/605-1.html and
www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2002/split/611-1.html). Other notable physics
developments for the year include stopping and storing light in a solid
(Update 571), the observation of phase-transition behavior in nuclei (572),
publication of some unsent letters by Niels Bohr to Werner Heisenberg (576),
interferometry with C-70 molecules (579), a dispute over "fusion" in
sonoluminescence (579, 599), most precise tests of special relativity (571,
590), sharper maps of the cosmic microwave background (591), "droplet" of
light (596), claims for element 118 retracted (597), verification of the
notion that the second law of thermodynamics can be violated on small
spacetime intervals (598), high precision measurements of CP violation in B
meson decays and in the g-2 factor of the muon (600), scandal at Lucent
(606), record high laboratory magnetic fields (614), polarization in the
cosmic microwave background detected (606), 2002 Nobel prize for physics
(608), noise can improve balance (612), and longest measured atomic lifetime
(616). All the above Update items can be retrieved from our archive at
www.aip.org/physnews/update.
REACTOR ANTI-NEUTRINO DISAPPEARANCE, measured by a detector in Japan,
supports the idea that neutrinos oscillate from one type to another and that
they possess mass. Nuclear reactors produce several things: heat,
electricity, spent fuel rods, and neutrinos. The neutrinos (or, to be more
exact, electron anti-neutrinos) are a result of fission reactions inside the
reactor core. But some of the electron antineutrinos, once they're underway
and moving through the Earth, manifest one of the weirdest phenomena in all
of physics, namely the ability to exist as a composite of several
sub-species. That is, what we call a neutrino is really several (perhaps
three) neutrinos in one. At any point along its trajectory the generic
neutrino might (if you were to capture it just then) appear as an electron
neutrino, but farther along it might look like a muon neutrino, in which
case it would elude detectors tuned to detect only electron nu's.
The Kamioka Liquid Scintillator Anti-Neutrino Detector (KamLAND) sets out
to sample this odd mode of being. The apparatus, basically a huge reservoir
of optically-active liquid viewed by numerous phototubes, looks for
interactions in which an incoming nu strikes a proton, creating in their
stead a trackable neutron-positron pair. KamLAND resides in an underground
lab beneath Toyama, Japan. It is a sort of telescope peering not at
galaxies in the sky; instead it stares through a block of terrestrial crust
looking for the neutrino warmth cast off by a constellation of 69 reactors
in Japan and Korea.
Taking into account the laws of physics governing the reactions in the
reactor cores, the known power ratings for the reactors, their aggregate
reactor-detector distances, and the duration of the experiment (145 days),
one would expect seeing 86 true events, whereas the actual number was 54.
The researchers conclude that the disappearance of events is due to neutrino
oscillation.
This result is not merely a confirmation of oscillation research carried
out with solar nu's at such detectors as Super Kamiokande in Japan and the
Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO) in Canada (see Update 586,
http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2002/split/586-1.html). For one thing
KamLAND studies anti-neutrinos rather than neutrinos. Furthermore, the
production of neutrinos in a reactor is much closer at hand and better
understood than is the case for the sun. The KamLAND finding also serves to
narrow the theoretical explanation of the neutrino's split personality.
(Eguchi et al., paper submitted to Physical Review Letters, text and
background information at:
http://hep.stanford.edu/neutrino/KamLAND/KamLAND.html)
The "solar neutrino problem" was solve a few years ago:
http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2002/split/586-1.html
http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2002/split/608-1.html
Note these papers by John N. Bahcall, Sarbani Basu, M. H. Pinsonneault:
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9805135
http://pdg.lbl.gov/1998/solarnu_s005313.pdf
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/pubs/beamline/24/3/24-3-bahcall.pdf
Also read:
http://www.sns.ias.edu/~jnb/Papers/Popular/JohnRayhistory/johnrayhistory.html
http://www.fynu.ucl.ac.be/librairie/theses/gustaaf.brooijmans/node26.html
http://www.mpi-hd.mpg.de/kirsten/gallex/detector.htm
Neutrino producing reactions adapted [by Lang]
from Bahcall (1989). The termination percentage is a fraction of terminations
of the proton-proton (pp) chain, 4p --> alpha + 2e+ + 2v_e, in which each
reaction occurs. Since in essentially all terminations at least one pp neutrino
is produced and in a few terminations one pp and one pep neutrino are created,
the total of pp and pep terminations exceeds 100%
Name Reaction % Termination Neutrino Energy, q
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pp p + p --> H² + e+ + v_e 100 q < 0.420 MeV
pep p + e- + p --> H² + v_e 0.4 q = 1.442 MeV
hep He³ + p --> He4 + v_e 0.00002 q < 18.773 MeV
Be7 Be7 + e- --> Li7 + v_e 15 q = 0.862 MeV 89.7%
q = 0.384 MeV 10.3%
B8 B8 --> Be7 + e+ + v_e 0.02 q < 15 MeV
Calculated Solar neutrino fluxes at the Earth's Surface
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pp 6.0 x 10^10 cm^-2 s^-1
pep 0.014 x 10^10 cm^-2 s^-1
hep 8 x 10^3 cm^-2 s^-1
Be7 0.47 x 10^10 cm^-2 s^-1
B8 5.8 x 10^6 cm^-2 s^-1
Other relevant papers by John N. Bahcall, Sarbani Basu, M. H. Pinsonneault:
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9805135
http://pdg.lbl.gov/1998/solarnu_s005313.pdf
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/pubs/beamline/24/3/24-3-bahcall.pdf
And here is something fun you can do:
http://www.physics.mun.ca/~jjerrett/protonproton/pp.html
More fun references:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/solarpp.html
http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/8/0,5716,63188+1+61627,00.html
http://www.eps.org/aps/meet/APR00/baps/abs/S5690002.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
