|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Why the first postulate of SR is wrong, was How does theLight Move?
On Dec 26, 7:08*am, Antares 531 wrote:
On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 17:47:50 -0800 (PST), Newberry wrote: On Dec 25, 3:20*pm, Antares 531 wrote: On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 19:12:00 -0800 (PST), Newberry wrote: On Dec 23, 7:06*am, PD wrote: On Dec 22, 11:45*pm, Newberry wrote: On Dec 22, 5:27*am, (Daryl McCullough) wrote: Arindam Banerjee says... The speed of light in a dielectric medium is c/(square root of the refractive index). I worked in the microwave area for over 8 years, desigining strip line circuits, and it was an experimental fact that light would travel slowly - the line lengths were thus adjusted to give the required phase differences. Yes, that is true. The current understanding of dielectrics at the microscopic level is this: An external electromagnetic field is applied to a material. In response to this external field, charges and dipoles in the material move and change orientation. This in turn produces its own response field, which adds to the original external field. In the case of magnetic fields, the net result is to increase the field, as magnetic dipoles tend to line up with external magnetic fields. In the case of electric fields, the net result is to decrease the field, because charges and electric dipoles move around to cancel the external field. The propagation of electromagnetic fields in matter thus includes both the vacuum propagation of the fields and also the (approximately linear) response of the matter. These combined effects propagate slower than pure electromagnetic fields in vacuum. It was the Michelson Morley Interferomtry experiment that gave the wrong impression (based upon a huge bungle) about all the e=mcc stuff. *It is most unworthy for any man of honour to believe that crap, especially when I have found out the correct equation linking mass and energy from first principles. I don't think so. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY Can you explain the paradox of twins? What paradox? There is a teaching puzzle, designed specifically to highlight where students have oversimplified what relativity says. Is this what you mean?- Hide quoted text - Let there be a clock A on Earth and a clock B on a rocket. Accelerate the rocket to 0.5c. Let it fly much longer than the time of acceleration. The clock B is ticking more slowly with respect to A, and A is ticking more slowly with respect B. Now reverse the direction of the rocket and fly it back to Earth. The time of deceleration/ acceleration is insignificant compared to the time of flight. The clock B is still ticking more slowly with respect to A, and A is ticking more slowly with respect to B. Now decelerate the rocket and land it on Earth. Time of deceleration insignificant. Compare the two clocks. Clock B is behind clock A, and clock A is behind clock B. Take this a bit farther...two photons leave the surface of the sun at the same time and travel along parallel lines. What is the speed of photon A relative to photon B? Assume, for the sake of this thought experiment that it is possible to measure these velocities from each photon. Think of this as hopping onto photon B for a ride and measuring the speed of photon A while you are on this journey. I suppose the answer is that in fact you cannot measure the velocity of one photon from another. Why? Okay, I realize this was just a thought experiment and could never be objectively tested, but it seems rational, to me. Taking this a bit farther, if space ships could travel at c, and two such space ships were traveling along parallel lines, near each other, what would each space ship observe as the velocity of the other? 0. (The speed would be c - epsilon.) The photons have the obligation (according to SR) to travel at c in any inertial frame. Space ships do not. In SR everything is based on verification. Since a photon cannot be absorbed in another photon there is no way to say what velocity they have wrt one another. I suppose you could dispute this account but there is no major inconsistency. You could probably also say that the photons travel at c in all inertial frames except the frames that themelves travel at c. Then two parallel photons would have the velocity 0 and two photons traveling in the opposite directions would have the velocity 2c. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Why the first postulate of SR is wrong, was How does theLight Move?
On Dec 23, 9:12*pm, Newberry wrote:
On Dec 23, 7:06*am, PD wrote: On Dec 22, 11:45*pm, Newberry wrote: On Dec 22, 5:27*am, (Daryl McCullough) wrote: Arindam Banerjee says... The speed of light in a dielectric medium is c/(square root of the refractive index). I worked in the microwave area for over 8 years, desigining strip line circuits, and it was an experimental fact that light would travel slowly - the line lengths were thus adjusted to give the required phase differences. Yes, that is true. The current understanding of dielectrics at the microscopic level is this: An external electromagnetic field is applied to a material. In response to this external field, charges and dipoles in the material move and change orientation. This in turn produces its own response field, which adds to the original external field. In the case of magnetic fields, the net result is to increase the field, as magnetic dipoles tend to line up with external magnetic fields. In the case of electric fields, the net result is to decrease the field, because charges and electric dipoles move around to cancel the external field. The propagation of electromagnetic fields in matter thus includes both the vacuum propagation of the fields and also the (approximately linear) response of the matter. These combined effects propagate slower than pure electromagnetic fields in vacuum. It was the Michelson Morley Interferomtry experiment that gave the wrong impression (based upon a huge bungle) about all the e=mcc stuff. *It is most unworthy for any man of honour to believe that crap, especially when I have found out the correct equation linking mass and energy from first principles. I don't think so. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY Can you explain the paradox of twins? What paradox? There is a teaching puzzle, designed specifically to highlight where students have oversimplified what relativity says. Is this what you mean?- Hide quoted text - Let there be a clock A on Earth and a clock B on a rocket. Accelerate the rocket to 0.5c. Let it fly much longer than the time of acceleration. The clock B is ticking more slowly with respect to A, and A is ticking more slowly with respect B. Now reverse the direction of the rocket and fly it back to Earth. The time of deceleration/ acceleration is insignificant compared to the time of flight. This is where the oversimplification occurs. A remarkable thing happens to the reading on clock A, as seen on the rocket B, during the acceleration back toward home. The clock B is still ticking more slowly with respect to A, and A is ticking more slowly with respect to B. Now decelerate the rocket and land it on Earth. Time of deceleration insignificant. Compare the two clocks. Clock B is behind clock A, and clock A is behind clock B. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Why the first postulate of SR is wrong, was How does theLight Move?
On Dec 25, 12:05*am, Newberry wrote:
On Dec 23, 10:10*pm, Sam Wormley wrote: On 12/24/09 12:01 AM, Newberry wrote: If you are in a free fall does your clock still go more slowly? Since there is no pull there should be no red shift. * *GPS Satellites are in free fall. This is a good example actually. The satellite clock will be delayed by about 7 ìs/day because it moves at v = 4 km/s. [Is this the orbital speed or speed wrt the GPS receiver?] Does the satellite also see my clock slipping 7 ìs/day? The GPS satellite is not in an inertial frame of reference. It is *constantly* accelerating. Which the Earth clock is not. This is precisely the lesson that the twin puzzle is aimed to instruct. See: Relativistic Effects on Satellite Clocks *http://relativity.livingreviews.org/...=node5....Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Why the first postulate of SR is wrong, was How does theLight Move?
On Dec 26, 9:57*am, PD wrote:
On Dec 23, 9:12*pm, Newberry wrote: On Dec 23, 7:06*am, PD wrote: On Dec 22, 11:45*pm, Newberry wrote: On Dec 22, 5:27*am, (Daryl McCullough) wrote: Arindam Banerjee says... The speed of light in a dielectric medium is c/(square root of the refractive index). I worked in the microwave area for over 8 years, desigining strip line circuits, and it was an experimental fact that light would travel slowly - the line lengths were thus adjusted to give the required phase differences. Yes, that is true. The current understanding of dielectrics at the microscopic level is this: An external electromagnetic field is applied to a material. In response to this external field, charges and dipoles in the material move and change orientation. This in turn produces its own response field, which adds to the original external field. In the case of magnetic fields, the net result is to increase the field, as magnetic dipoles tend to line up with external magnetic fields. In the case of electric fields, the net result is to decrease the field, because charges and electric dipoles move around to cancel the external field. The propagation of electromagnetic fields in matter thus includes both the vacuum propagation of the fields and also the (approximately linear) response of the matter. These combined effects propagate slower than pure electromagnetic fields in vacuum. It was the Michelson Morley Interferomtry experiment that gave the wrong impression (based upon a huge bungle) about all the e=mcc stuff. *It is most unworthy for any man of honour to believe that crap, especially when I have found out the correct equation linking mass and energy from first principles. I don't think so. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY Can you explain the paradox of twins? What paradox? There is a teaching puzzle, designed specifically to highlight where students have oversimplified what relativity says. Is this what you mean?- Hide quoted text - Let there be a clock A on Earth and a clock B on a rocket. Accelerate the rocket to 0.5c. Let it fly much longer than the time of acceleration. The clock B is ticking more slowly with respect to A, and A is ticking more slowly with respect B. Now reverse the direction of the rocket and fly it back to Earth. The time of deceleration/ acceleration is insignificant compared to the time of flight. This is where the oversimplification occurs. A remarkable thing happens to the reading on clock A, as seen on the rocket B, during the acceleration back toward home. I would still like to know why the Earth does not observe B's red shift during B's acceleration back towards home. The clock B is still ticking more slowly with respect to A, and A is ticking more slowly with respect to B. Now decelerate the rocket and land it on Earth. Time of deceleration insignificant. Compare the two clocks. Clock B is behind clock A, and clock A is behind clock B.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
How does the Light Move?
On Dec 18, 11:49*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Dec 18, 3:27 am, Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity: In our best model of light, QED, the photon is NOT a particle. Neither is it a wave. * * * * There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, * * * * Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. -- Shakespeare There is no expectation that words and concepts from your everyday life capture the essence of phenomena far removed from you everyday experience. Photons and quantum phenomena are indeed far removed (you experience light, not photons or their quantum implications). Honest Roberts stop introducing red herrings! You know that the problem crucial for contemporary physics is: Does the speed of light depend on the speed of the light source, as Newton's emission theory of light assumes, or is it independent of the speed of the light source, as Einstein's special relativity assumes. I suggest that you return to and develop the following insights of yours: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...sg/44abc7dbb30... John Norton: "THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE." Tom Roberts: "Sure. The fact that this one experiment is compatible with other theories does not refute relativity in any way. The full experimental record refutes most if not all emission theories, but not relativity." Pentcho Valev: "THE POUND-REBKA EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE." Tom Roberts: "Sure. But this experiment, too, does not refute relativity. The full experimental record refutes most if not all emission theories, but not relativity." Pentcho Valev According to an outside observer, our entire galaxy is traveling away at the speed of light. ~ BG |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Why the first postulate of SR is wrong, was How does the
PD says...
The GPS satellite is not in an inertial frame of reference. It is *constantly* accelerating. Which the Earth clock is not. I'm sure you don't need to be told this, but for others reading, the Earth clock is not in an inertial frame of reference, either. For one thing, the Earth is rotating. For another, the Earth has gravity, so something on the surface of the Earth is accelerating upward relative to an object in free-fall. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Why the first postulate of SR is wrong, was How does the
yeah, one has to account for acceleration in both grond & orbital
frames. surfer's paper is good, because it accounts for the so-called null results of M&M, DCMiller et al -- also, in a graph (fig.3 .-); it's not perfect, but it's still great! http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.0039 "......The spacecraft observations demonstrate again that the speed of light is not invariant, and is isotropic only with respect to a dynamical 3-space....." I'm sure you don't need to be told this, but for others reading, the Earth clock is not in an inertial frame of reference, either. For one thing, the Earth is rotating. For another, the Earth has gravity, so something on the surface of the Earth is accelerating upward relative to an object in free-fall. --l'OEuvre, http://wlym.com http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.co...istic_Moon.pdf FCUK Copenhagen free carbon-credit trade rip-off; put a tariff on imported energy! |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Why the first postulate of SR is wrong, was How does theLight Move?
On Dec 26, 9:59*am, PD wrote:
On Dec 25, 12:05*am, Newberry wrote: On Dec 23, 10:10*pm, Sam Wormley wrote: On 12/24/09 12:01 AM, Newberry wrote: If you are in a free fall does your clock still go more slowly? Since there is no pull there should be no red shift. * *GPS Satellites are in free fall. This is a good example actually. The satellite clock will be delayed by about 7 ìs/day because it moves at v = 4 km/s. [Is this the orbital speed or speed wrt the GPS receiver?] Does the satellite also see my clock slipping 7 ìs/day? The GPS satellite is not in an inertial frame of reference. It is *constantly* accelerating. Which the Earth clock is not. This is precisely the lesson that the twin puzzle is aimed to instruct. So the satellite is constantly being accelerated towards the Earth and this causes a pseudo-gravitational field pointing outwards? And this causes the observer on the Earth to see the satellite's red shift? [canceled by the GR blue shift.] See: Relativistic Effects on Satellite Clocks *http://relativity.livingreviews.org/...ode5....quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Why the first postulate of SR is wrong, was How does the
On Dec 27, 8:16*am, (Daryl McCullough)
wrote: PD says... The GPS satellite is not in an inertial frame of reference. It is *constantly* accelerating. Which the Earth clock is not. I'm sure you don't need to be told this, but for others reading, the Earth clock is not in an inertial frame of reference, either. For one thing, the Earth is rotating. For another, the Earth has gravity, so something on the surface of the Earth is accelerating upward relative to an object in free-fall. this is true... -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Why the first postulate of SR is wrong, was How does theLight Move?
On Dec 26, 4:29*pm, Newberry wrote:
On Dec 26, 9:57*am, PD wrote: On Dec 23, 9:12*pm, Newberry wrote: On Dec 23, 7:06*am, PD wrote: On Dec 22, 11:45*pm, Newberry wrote: On Dec 22, 5:27*am, (Daryl McCullough) wrote: Arindam Banerjee says... The speed of light in a dielectric medium is c/(square root of the refractive index). I worked in the microwave area for over 8 years, desigining strip line circuits, and it was an experimental fact that light would travel slowly - the line lengths were thus adjusted to give the required phase differences. Yes, that is true. The current understanding of dielectrics at the microscopic level is this: An external electromagnetic field is applied to a material. In response to this external field, charges and dipoles in the material move and change orientation. This in turn produces its own response field, which adds to the original external field. In the case of magnetic fields, the net result is to increase the field, as magnetic dipoles tend to line up with external magnetic fields. In the case of electric fields, the net result is to decrease the field, because charges and electric dipoles move around to cancel the external field. The propagation of electromagnetic fields in matter thus includes both the vacuum propagation of the fields and also the (approximately linear) response of the matter. These combined effects propagate slower than pure electromagnetic fields in vacuum. It was the Michelson Morley Interferomtry experiment that gave the wrong impression (based upon a huge bungle) about all the e=mcc stuff. *It is most unworthy for any man of honour to believe that crap, especially when I have found out the correct equation linking mass and energy from first principles. I don't think so. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY Can you explain the paradox of twins? What paradox? There is a teaching puzzle, designed specifically to highlight where students have oversimplified what relativity says. Is this what you mean?- Hide quoted text - Let there be a clock A on Earth and a clock B on a rocket. Accelerate the rocket to 0.5c. Let it fly much longer than the time of acceleration. The clock B is ticking more slowly with respect to A, and A is ticking more slowly with respect B. Now reverse the direction of the rocket and fly it back to Earth. The time of deceleration/ acceleration is insignificant compared to the time of flight. This is where the oversimplification occurs. A remarkable thing happens to the reading on clock A, as seen on the rocket B, during the acceleration back toward home. I would still like to know why the Earth does not observe B's red shift during B's acceleration back towards home. Here's a nice short presentation about it. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...n_paradox.html The clock B is still ticking more slowly with respect to A, and A is ticking more slowly with respect to B. Now decelerate the rocket and land it on Earth. Time of deceleration insignificant. Compare the two clocks. Clock B is behind clock A, and clock A is behind clock B.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
never tip a move | [email protected] | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | August 14th 07 08:42 AM |
Move Over, Atheists! | Rockett Crawford | Amateur Astronomy | 2 | December 15th 05 08:59 PM |
Can a 'shadow' move faster than light? | nytecam | Amateur Astronomy | 17 | November 14th 05 06:23 PM |
Where should I move? | BigKhat | Amateur Astronomy | 47 | June 16th 04 11:18 PM |
Opportunity on the move | Joe Knapp | Policy | 1 | February 8th 04 11:12 PM |