Re: So does anyone else see the meter definition as silly


"Tom Sanderson" <tdscanuck@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:IuqL4s.FAx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| "Spaceman" <Realspace@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
| > | There's no difference between the lightsource moving towards the
| > observer
| > | and the observer moving towards the lightsource.
| >
| > Actually there would be, the lightsource will always emit at c. The
| > object heading towards it is what I think would not
| > read such a c.
|
| This is the Newtonian physics interpretation of the situation; it has been
| proven wrong several times by experiment.

It has never been tested in that way that I can find anywhere.
and Tom,
It is also a relativity based situation so relative speeds are
being ignored as a cause in such?.
Sch a test with an observer moving towards the lightsource
has not been done.
If you can find such, please do post a link.


| The source will emit light at c. The observer will always see it at c,
for
| one of two reasons:
| 1) If the observer is stationary relative to the source, they will get c,
| obviously
| 2) If the observer is moving relative to the source, the observer will
| experience time dilation relative to the source, causing them to observe
the
| same value of c despite the speed difference between source and observer.

Tom,
Are you actually an engineer?
If you are an engineer, I find it very hard that you can not realize
that a time dilation is a clock malfunction and nothing more than such.


| Yes, it is. The only way that it can be different is if there is an
| absolute reference frame to measure both source and observer against;
nobody
| has ever discovered such a reference. Otherwise there is no physical
| difference since you can't tell which one is "stationary".

The lightsource is "at rest" compared to Earth.
I am not picking an absolute, I am picking a known rest frame.
With such rest frame, the ship is moving towards the light.

And for your info.
Let's take a brick wall and a bullet hitting it.
If you say we don't know if the brick wall is moving
or the bullet is moving.
How come the end result shows us it was the bullets speed
doing the damage, and not the massive brick wall hitting the bullet.
If a 1 ton brick wall hits the bullet how much
energy would be hitting the bullet?
The end result does show you a basic fact of what was doing the
motion compared to the other.

Another example could be 2 identical cars.
heading towards each other at a relative speed of
100 mphs.
We can find the actual speeds by the end result of the crash.
If all the parts are thrown behind one car, that car was technically
stationery and the other car was doing 100mph.
End results do show, what was moving, so relativities
they are both moving crap, is null and void when such
end results can find such facts about the actual motion.

| They will *not* see a speed change relative to the medium of transmission.
| They will see a frequency shift.

Frequncy shift occurs from a relative motion difference.

| Doppler effect relates to frequency, not
| propagation velocity.

Wrong. the propagation velocity is what changes the frequency
by changing the time the wavelength goes by the object.
It is the only physical reason for doppler shift without a medium
in motion.



| Light undergoes the same thing (red shift). Light
| does *not* have a constant frequency between moving observers, only
constant
| velocity.

A constant speed to all would mean no doppler ever.

| The effect your talking about (frequency shift) *is* caused by change in
| relative speed. But it has nothing to do with calculating c.

It is a reason to question the constant speed of light, since
it can not be a speed of c and also come up with a frequency
change.


| Why does the experiment have to be Earth based? There's a whole lot of
| convenient vacuum out there...

Because using a "rest frame" compared to lots of other things
in such rest frame makes it easy to figure out what is actually moving
compared to the Earth itself.
(see the 2 cars, and bullet and wall, statements above)




.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Time is the paper on which the pen of the aether writes.
    ... > motion, of course!] ... It is THAT force that must propagate through the observer and his clock ... >> In special relativity, the speed of light is postulated to be constant ... >> speeds distances and time intervals. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Electron-positron annihilation
    ... as would be expected by both relativity and ballistic theory. ... the source whether there is an observer or not. ... It is even more absurd if one tries to deny the existence of the ether. ... A and B coincide it means that it set out at different speeds arrived at ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Electron-positron annihilation
    ... as would be expected by both relativity and ballistic theory. ... the source whether there is an observer or not. ... It is even more absurd if one tries to deny the existence of the ether. ... A and B coincide it means that it set out at different speeds arrived at ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: I am Trying To Learn Relativity
    ... If an observer is moving relative to the coordinate ... The closing speeds of c+v and c-v were calculated, ... This is an axiom of Relativity. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: "The Impossibility of Measuring the Velocity of Light"
    ... it but the speed of the observer would. ... with relativity it supports relativity while in fact the simplest ... "3.3 Tests of Light Speed from Moving Sources". ... to say "they travel in all possible directions at all possible speeds, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading