Re: A Bogus Claim By The SRians

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 22:19:04 -0000, "Androcles"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
>"HenriWilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 20:46:41 -0000, "Androcles"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"HenriWilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >[snip to the cause of the problem]
>> >
>> >
>> >> But there is no frequency shift.
>> >>
>> >> C.t(n)+(.5.a.t(n)^2)=D
>> >> For any value of a, the 't's (travel times of consecutive pulses) are
>> >equal.
>> >> Therefore they arrive at the same frequency as they are emitted.
>>
>> >Ok, ok,  I see where you are going,  but I don't see why!
>> >Inside the ship, I can release a ball to float free, which it does. The
>ship
>> >accelerates, going past the ball with an ever increasing velocity, until
>the
>> >'floor' reaches the ball. The ball then gets what we call 'bounced'. This
>is
>> >no different to the same situation in your living room. If you drop a
>ball,
>> >it goes ever faster until it hits the floor. This is just the PoR in
>action
>> >for acceleration. The same rule applies to a photon, when you shine a
>light
>> >from your ceiling, the photon is accelerated floorwards (or would be if
>> >there was no air). From 1/2at^2, the added velocity of the photon is
>mainly
>> >dependent on t, and the time for the photon to hit the floor at
>300,000,000
>> >meters per second from a height of (less than ) 3 metres  = 1/100,000,000
>> >seconds. Square that and multiply by a = 10 metres per sec^2, and it
>ain't
>> >much, but it is something.
>>
>> Forget the spaceship just use the equivalence principle. If I fire bullets
>> vertically from the Earth's surface at less than the escape velocity, they
>turn
>> around somewhere and fall back to earth at the same frequency as they were
>> fired. If their velocity is greater than the escape velocity, they arrive
>> somewhere else at the same emission frequency. If they have exactly the
>escape
>> velocity, they will travel forever and there will be an infinite number in
>> transit.
>>
>> This simulates ending pulses of light from the bottom of an accelerating
>> spaceship to the top. Below the escape velocity they fall back to the
>floor.
>> Above, they reaches the top. In both cases, the frequency of received
>pulses is
>> the same as the emission frequency even though individual photons will
>> experience frequency shifts.
>
>Answered before you said it, read below.
>
>> >So yes, if I drop more balls with a frequency of f, they'll hit the deck
>> >with a frequency of f, but they'll have a higher velocity (relative to
>the
>> >ship) than they did when they left the deckhead. For one photon, using f'
>=
>> >f.(c+v)/c, and E = hf,
>> >I would say that photon has a higher frequency, hence energy , but I'll
>> >agree that there won't be another one along for one second if it released
>> >one second later.
>>
>> That explains why clock 'tick rates' do not change when sent from teh GPS
>but
>> the hotons broadcasting them does. See my demo 'fallingwave.exe'
>>
>> >So what is the point that someone is trying to make? I've lost all track
>of
>> >what the thread was about or who opened the discussion.
>>
>> Seto started it by asking what happens to light sent towards the middle
>from
>> each end of an accelerating spaceship.
>>
>> >Perhaps if we rewrote the equations
>> >E = hf' and f' = f(c+v)/c,
>> >then we can ignore f for the photon:
>> >E = h(c+v)/c.
>> >This makes more sense to me than tying in the frequency, which remains
>> >unchanged in a universal time.
>> >Androcles
>> >
>>
>> Incidentally, Ken raised another interesting point. In an accelerating
>> spaceship, the acceleration is uniform from top to bottom. On Earth, it
>> decreases with height. So the equivalence principle does not appear to
>hold.
>>
>> Henri Wilson.
>> See the Stupidity of Relativity.
>> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
>1) Henri, you didn't answer may last point.
>E = hf' and f' = f(c+v)/c,
>then we can ignore f for the photon:
>E = h(c+v)/c.
>
>2) Ken Seto doesn't have any interesting points. His ideas concerning
>acceleration at height have been thought about and resolved long ago. Just
>because he raised the issue and you didn't see the solution doesn't make it
>interesting to me, even if it does to you.

I saw Tom's solution but didn't believe a word of it.

> Have you ever wondered why the moon keeps the same face toward the Earth?
>Think about it. There is a different acceleration on the far side of the
>moon than on the nearside. Hint: What causes tides?

I still say all parts of an accelerated (rigid) remote spaceship will
experience the same force.

>Ken Seto doesn't want to learn anything, he just wants to push his pet
>aether on everyone; 

Ken actually provokes arguments by being half right much of the time.
For instance, if the train observer placed two synched clocks at each end of
the train and used those to detect the lightning flashes, what would that tell
him about the simultaneity?  

It would tell everyone that Ken got it half right. In fact he got it completely
right for the aether case. The train observer would know that the flashes
occured simultaneously. (at a different time, with an aether). 

>you may fall into the same trap if you keep pushing your
>h-aether and insisting that SR is bull. I know it's the excrement of the
>male bovine, but assertion carries no weight. Proof is all anyone with half
>a brain will listen to, and I only have half a brain, according to Paul
>Andersen.

I have proved it is bull. My 'moving rod' experiment is so convincing no SRian
wants to even discuss it. They are too terrified.

My H-aether theory is still under development and is generally not involved in
any of this. Its main purpose is to explain what happens to freely traveling
photons. I'm not the only person who thinks light speed varies as it negotiates
macroscopic density and gravity gradients. My suggestion that light carries
haether along with itself and consequently interferes with other light is
probably pretty novel.

>Good seeing,
>Androcles
>
>


Henri Wilson. 
See the Stupidity of Relativity.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm