Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #519359 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-09-06 20:21 +0000 |
| Last post | 2015-09-14 09:31 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 100 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Relativistic Radio Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-09-06 20:21 +0000
Re: Relativistic Radio Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2015-09-06 14:34 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-09-06 21:47 +0000
Re: Relativistic Radio pcardinale@volcanomail.com - 2015-09-06 17:36 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-09-07 01:56 +0000
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 07:15 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-09-07 05:44 +0000
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 08:50 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio pcardinale@volcanomail.com - 2015-09-07 15:16 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 10:04 -0500
Re: Relativistic Radio Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-09-08 16:59 +0000
Re: Relativistic Radio Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 12:41 -0500
Re: Relativistic Radio Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-09-08 18:24 +0000
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 21:22 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-09-08 17:43 +0000
Re: Relativistic Radio Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 12:47 -0500
Re: Relativistic Radio Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-09-08 19:26 +0000
Re: Relativistic Radio jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2015-09-10 01:58 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-10 19:16 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-10 19:42 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2015-09-11 00:53 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2015-09-11 06:07 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 15:08 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 15:28 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 06:31 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio "Phony McNymster" <invalid@example.com> - 2015-09-11 07:42 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 07:59 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2015-09-11 07:16 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 09:41 -0500
Re: Relativistic Radio Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 09:49 -0500
Re: Relativistic Radio Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-09-11 18:18 +0000
Re: Relativistic Radio noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 11:24 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-09-12 11:20 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2015-09-12 06:21 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 02:04 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2015-09-13 00:07 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 09:22 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 09:59 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2015-09-13 03:44 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 07:33 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 07:49 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2015-09-14 01:07 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 10:40 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2015-09-14 03:40 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 13:19 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2015-09-14 04:55 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 15:01 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 16:36 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2015-09-14 12:18 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 08:29 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2015-09-15 02:41 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 12:11 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2015-09-15 06:06 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 15:40 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2015-09-15 06:06 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 15:59 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2015-09-15 09:39 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 18:47 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2015-09-15 10:10 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 19:57 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2015-09-15 11:14 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 20:23 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 20:31 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2015-09-15 12:21 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 13:30 -0500
Re: Relativistic Radio jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2015-09-14 00:57 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 14:50 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2015-09-14 12:57 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 08:37 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2015-09-15 03:06 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 13:10 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 13:15 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2015-09-15 06:43 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 16:11 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 18:26 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 18:35 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 16:44 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 08:15 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 08:44 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 17:38 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 18:00 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 11:22 -0500
Re: Relativistic Radio jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2015-09-12 12:29 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 01:16 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2015-09-12 23:09 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 08:35 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 08:44 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2015-09-12 23:50 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 09:14 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2015-09-13 05:24 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 07:35 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2015-09-14 01:01 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 10:39 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 09:34 -0500
Re: Relativistic Radio jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2015-09-14 12:31 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 08:53 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 10:22 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 09:08 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 09:32 -0500
Re: Relativistic Radio Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 09:31 -0500
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-14 07:49 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mt5n2i$16v$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #520953 |
Dne 14/09/2015 v 07:33 Poutnik napsal(a): > There is missing evaluation of intensity, > according to relativistic Doppler effect. > > The Lorentz invariant is intensity divided by frequency^3 Therefore, if in the static case there is source of 600 nm with intensity 1 W/steradian, in case of observed 300nm the intensity rearangement of relativistic Doppler effect causes observed intensity 8 W/steradian. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect#Doppler_effect_on_intensity -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jaymoseley@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-14 01:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8cbdb0ef-54d2-40ba-ad60-9f740e072401@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #520956 |
Poutnik... >relativistic doppler effect etc. I think the original question was specifically about photons, not relativistic effects.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-14 10:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mt6131$ut2$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #520965 |
On 09/14/2015 10:07 AM, jaymoseley@hotmail.com wrote: > Poutnik... >> relativistic doppler effect etc. > > I think the original question was specifically about photons, not relativistic effects. > You cannot ignore them. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer ) Knowledge makes a great man humble, but a small man arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jaymoseley@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-14 03:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2ae57c0e-ee9a-44e8-9881-efafebbdfded@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #520967 |
Poutnik > > I think the original question was specifically about photons, not relativistic effects. > You cannot ignore them. I can. What I cannot ignore is conservation of energy, which you have to ignore if you feel obliged to not ignore relativistic effects and photons.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-14 13:19 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mt6ad2$n6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #520990 |
On 09/14/2015 12:40 PM, jaymoseley@hotmail.com wrote: > Poutnik >>> I think the original question was specifically about photons, not relativistic effects. > >> You cannot ignore them. > > I can. You cannot, unless you want your conclusions to be wrong. > What I cannot ignore is conservation of energy, which you have to ignore > if you feel obliged to not ignore relativistic effects and photons. Like this. SR honours energy conservation. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer ) Knowledge makes a great man humble, but a small man arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jaymoseley@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-14 04:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <79566c81-7a80-43bb-b24a-78de65754829@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #520991 |
Poutnik... >> >> You cannot ignore them. >> > I can. >You cannot, unless you want your conclusions to be wrong. Show me the observed data that shows that emr emitted gains energy if detected by a detector that moves towards it. Dont forget...yes It gains energy per second if blueshifted but overall it doesnt as the gedanken only releases a set amount of emr. >> What I cannot ignore is conservation of energy, which you have to ignore >> if you feel obliged to not ignore relativisticeffects and photons. >Like this. SR honours energy conservation. Like heck it does. How about this thought experiment: Im sitting in a room, next to me is a light source that emits a small pulse of emr. That pulse travels to a beam splitter which sends half to me and half to a door opening in the room just as you walk into the room. You receive it as you are moving towards the splitter. I receive it as I sit. Your part of the radiation is blueshifted slightly. Mine isnt. Under relativity you supposedly receive more energy than I do.Yet both you and I are supposed to have received the same amount. Your model has created new energy in violation of the law of conservation of energy Where does your extra energy come from? And what empirically observed data can you cite to back up your claim?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-14 15:01 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mt6gc4$mot$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #520992 |
On 09/14/2015 01:55 PM, jaymoseley@hotmail.com wrote: > Poutnik... > >> >> You cannot ignore them. > >>>> I can. > >> You cannot, unless you want your conclusions to be wrong. > > Show me the observed data that shows that emr emitted > gains energy if detected by a detector that moves towards it. > Dont forget...yes It gains energy per second if blueshifted but overall > it doesnt as the gedanken only releases a set amount of emr. Initial evaluation is wrong, so does the conclusion. The EMr from moving source does not gain energy from void, it just passes energy provided by the source. > >>> What I cannot ignore is conservation of energy, which you have to ignore >>> if you feel obliged to not ignore relativisticeffects and photons. > >> Like this. SR honours energy conservation. > > Like heck it does. Sure it does. But if SR is applied incorrectly, it does not. But it is not the fault of SR. > > How about this thought experiment: > Im sitting in a room, next to me is a light source that emits a small > pulse of emr. That pulse travels to a beam splitter which sends half to me and > half to a door opening in the room just as you walk into the room. You receive it > as you are moving towards the splitter. I receive it as I sit. Your part of the radiation > is blueshifted slightly. Mine isnt. Replace the light by a machine gun shooting alternatively bullets to a standing soldier and a soldier running toward the gun. The running soldier is hit with higher cadency than standing one and each of hitting bullet causes higher impact. > Under relativity you supposedly receive more energy than I do.Yet both you and > I are supposed to have received the same amount. Wrong presumption even in context of classical mechanics, as shown above. > Your model has created new energy > in violation of the law of conservation of energy > Where does your extra energy come from? And what empirically observed data can > you cite to back up your claim? > The model is not mine, and creates no energy. Your wrong conclusion is based on wrong analysis. If moving source is considered comparing to static case, than in the frame wher source is moving, the source provide more energy, in the frame where the target is moving, the target provides extra energy. It is similar case as we discussed the ball ejector - target scenario. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer ) Knowledge makes a great man humble, but a small man arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-14 16:36 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mt6ltm$dtc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #521006 |
On 09/14/2015 03:01 PM, Poutnik wrote: >> Under relativity you supposedly receive more energy than I do.Yet both you and >> > I are supposed to have received the same amount. > Wrong presumption even in context of classical mechanics, > as shown above. > As I add my own energy, while you do not, so total light impact on me is higher by the energy I did provided. That is valid with resting light source and the splitter. In the frame where I am in the rest., the additional energy is provided by light source, and transmitted by moving splitter on me. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer ) Knowledge makes a great man humble, but a small man arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jaymoseley@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-14 12:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c642ea6f-a122-469c-8a0e-df40d10447d0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #521035 |
Poutnik... >As I add my own energy, while you do not, so total light impact on me is higher by the energy I did provided. <that is valid with resting light source and the splitter. >in the frame where I am in the rest., the additional energy is provided by light source, and transmitted by moving splitter on me. There is a problem with your answer. Firstly you say the additional energy detected by you comes from you, then it comes from the light source. Thats nonsense. Its either one or the other. Not both. And it can never be from the source regardless, as you and I have both been sent the same amount of energy after the emr has left the source by the beam splitter. So the source has to be ruled out because we know the beam splitter always sends the same amount on both paths. That leaves you with the only option possible, being that YOU supply the extra energy. Which means assuming light is a photon and has mass that hits you harder because you are moving towards it. But can you prove this? Is there an experiment that can verify that when a specific amount of electromagnetic radiation has been emitted and it hits you, .....you detect the original amount *plus* an extra amount supplied by you? Ive never read any such proof.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-15 08:29 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mt8dp3$t9s$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #521113 |
Dne 14/09/2015 v 21:18 jaymoseley@hotmail.com napsal(a): > Poutnik... >> As I add my own energy, while you do not, so total light impact on me is higher by the energy I did provided. > > <that is valid with resting light source and the splitter. Sure. And the following where I am in the rest. > >> in the frame where I am in the rest., the additional energy is provided by light source, and transmitted by moving splitter on me. > > There is a problem with your answer. Firstly you say the additional energy detected > by you comes from you, then it comes from the light source. Thats nonsense. Its > either one or the other. Not both. And it can never be from the source regardless, > as you and I have both been sent the same amount of energy after the emr > has left the source by the beam splitter. So the source has to be ruled out > because we know the beam splitter always sends the same amount on both > paths. > That leaves you with the only option possible, being that YOU supply the extra In the frame where I-walking am in rest and the source and splitter moves, the moving source provides extra energy. But as you moves as well, this extra energy is subtracted from collission energy, providing you kinetic energy. > energy. Which means assuming light is a photon and has mass that hits you Photon has no mass, just momentum. > harder because you are moving towards it. > But can you prove this? Is there an experiment that can verify that when a > specific amount of electromagnetic radiation has been emitted and it hits > you, .....you detect the original amount *plus* an extra amount supplied by you? Laser cooling. There is are atoms/molecules of temperature close to 0 K. They have absorption wavelength lambda. There is used laser with wavelength slighly longer, so EMR is not absorbed by matter not moving toward the laser. But those ones, that move toward the laser, perceive wavelength shorter than of the laser, with with higher energy, as they added needed extra energy by their deceleration. Later they emit the photon again, but the net energy bilance is negative, progressively decelerating the atoms and cooling the matter. > > Ive never read any such proof. Of course the above is not nonsense. You run in circles around wrong idea that provided energy must be the same in every frame. You should get leave that idea on a safe ground of classical mechanics, until you go to next level of EMR, relativistic speeds and SR rules. Return to the ball ejector - moving target case. In the frame where the target is moving, the additional collision energy comes from the moving target. In the frame where the ejector i moving and targer is in rest, the additional collision energy comes from the moving ejector. Nobody ever read any proof SR does not honour energy conservation law. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jaymoseley@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-15 02:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8ccd5c54-469b-4e49-aad6-484fdda93ccd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #521230 |
Poutnik wrote... >I n the frame where I-walking am in rest and the source and splitter moves, the moving source provides extra energy. But as you moves as well, this extra energy is subtracted from collission energy, providing you kinetic energy Your answers are getting more bizarre each time you try to vindicate relativity. In your above quote you say that the reason I dont notice an increase in my energy received from my half of the source from the beam splitter is because you send extra energy to me via the source! Thats a totally bogus explanation. How do I get this extra energy without noticing an increase in energy that I detect from the beam splitter? Also,... I asked you for experimental proof of a detector receiving more total energy than emitted according to photon model. You still havent supplied it. Your laser doppler cooling experiment certainly wasnt an example. For starters integral to its results is the fact that atoms have a narrow emr absorbtion range. The reason why the atom receives less or more depending on its motion is due to that parameter dictating how much is absorbed. It has nothing to do with the gedanken we discuss. The gedanken only asks,.. if one wavelength of light is emitted for one second, will the detector, if moving relative to the source, detect more total energy than emitted. The gedanken wasnt asking... do atoms have narrow absorbtion / emission ranges! So far you still have no experimental proof to back up the photon models claim that extra energy is created by moving detector or source.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-15 12:11 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mt8qpp$7l8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #521240 |
On 09/15/2015 11:41 AM, jaymoseley@hotmail.com wrote: > Poutnik wrote... >> I n the frame where I-walking am in rest and the source and splitter moves, the moving source provides extra energy. But as you moves as well, this extra energy is subtracted from collission energy, providing you kinetic energy > > Your answers are getting more bizarre each time you try to vindicate relativity. I will turn the table, as bizarre are you wrong evaluations of scenarios in particular frames. > In your above quote you say that the reason I dont notice an increase in > my energy received from my half of the source from the beam splitter is > because you send extra energy to me via the source! Thats a totally bogus > explanation. I agree it is a bogus. But is is not my bogus explanation, but your bogus interpretation of my explanation. In the frame I am in rest, there happen both blue shift at source side and red shift at your side, so you do not receive the extra energy I receive. > How do I get this extra energy without noticing an increase > in energy that I detect from the beam splitter? You do not. It is the same case as if there is a ball ejector and 2 targets, one in rest and the other moving toward the ejector. In the frame, where the target moving toward the ejector is in the rest, there is "blue-shifting" of ejected balls ( they have higher kinetic energy ) and at thebsame time "red-shifting" of the other target, departing away in this frame, while being in rest wrt the ejector. > > Also,... I asked you for experimental proof of a detector receiving more > total energy than emitted according to photon model. You still havent > supplied it. Of course there is no such proof. As the point is, the detector does not receive more energy than is emitted. the detector receives more energy, because there is more energy emitted, what you refuse to understand. > For starters integral to its results is the fact that atoms > have a narrow emr absorbtion range. The reason why the atom > receives less or more depending on its motion is due to that parameter > dictating how much is absorbed. It has nothing to do with the gedanken > we discuss. The fact you do not see the similarities does not mean they are not there. > The gedanken only asks,.. if one wavelength of light is > emitted for one second, will the detector, if moving relative to the source, > detect more total energy than emitted. No, it will not. When it receives increased energy, it is because increased energy is emitted. It is simple. Is was already several time shown even on ball ejector case. > The gedanken wasnt asking... do atoms have narrow absorbtion / > emission ranges! Result of your not understanding what it shows. > So far you still have no experimental proof to back up the photon models > claim that extra energy is created by moving detector or source. Evalute laser cooling and thermal broadening cases once more and this time properly, so you understand what they are about. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer ) Knowledge makes a great man humble, but a small man arrogant. Eventual Wikipedia articles are provided with intention of a convenient reference, not as an evidence, argument, and usually not as a primary source of my knowledge.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jaymoseley@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-15 06:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9d697e84-5da5-42c3-8d2c-20919612f7e0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #521243 |
Poutnik... > Of course there is no such proof. As the point is, the detector does not receive more energy than is emitted. the detector receives more energy, because >there is more energy emitted, what you refuse to understand. The detector does not receive more energy than is emitted because the the emitter emits more energy than it emits? ! Wow,... thats hilarious.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-15 15:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mt970c$l7n$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #521254 |
On 09/15/2015 03:06 PM, jaymoseley@hotmail.com wrote: > Poutnik... >> Of course there is no such proof. As the point is, the detector does not receive more energy than is emitted. the detector receives more energy, because >there is more energy emitted, what you refuse to understand. > > The detector does not receive more energy than is emitted because the the emitter > emits more energy than it emits? ! > Wow,... thats hilarious. > Your conclusions are used to be like that. The detector does not receive more energy than is emitted, *even if it receives more energy than in static case* because the emitter emits more energy as well. What is there hard to understand ? Try to understand it first in Newton mechanic cases of ball ejector, that provided and received energy is FRAME DEPENDENT. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer ) Knowledge makes a great man humble, but a small man arrogant. Eventual Wikipedia articles are provided with intention of a convenient reference, not as an evidence, argument, and usually not as a primary source of my knowledge.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jaymoseley@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-15 06:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5a5239d9-c555-4c87-abac-6c89882ccf3d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #521243 |
Poutnik... > Of course there is no such proof. As the point is, the detector does not receive more energy than is emitted. the detector receives more energy, because >there is more energy emitted, what you refuse to understand. The detector does not receive more energy than is emitted because the the emitter emits more energy than it emits? ! Wow,... thats hilarious.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-15 15:59 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mt983o$pgv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #521255 |
On 09/15/2015 03:06 PM, jaymoseley@hotmail.com wrote: > Poutnik... >> Of course there is no such proof. As the point is, the detector does not receive more energy than is emitted. the detector receives more energy, because >there is more energy emitted, what you refuse to understand. > > The detector does not receive more energy than is emitted because the the emitter > emits more energy than it emits? ! > Wow,... thats hilarious. > Let return back to the gedanken. Case 1 - static There is emitted 10e+19 photons by a pulse of a stationary 800 nm IR laser of total energy 2.48 J. All energy is captured by the static detector. What energy is captured by the detector ? Trivial answer 2.48 J. But, now *I would like hear from you* your evaluation of both frames for the dynamic case below, when source and detector move toward each other by v=0.6c. Case 2 - the frame with the source moving toward static detector, so detector perceives 400 nm blueshifted UV instead. What energy emits the source ? what energy receives the detector ? Case 3 - the frame with the detector moving toward the static source. What energy emits the source ? what energy receives the detector. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer ) Knowledge makes a great man humble, but a small man arrogant. Eventual Wikipedia articles are provided with intention of a convenient reference, not as an evidence, argument, and usually not as a primary source of my knowledge.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jaymoseley@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-15 09:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8f0ad05d-d1fc-480e-849b-5d3bef994fe4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #521268 |
Poutnik... > Let return back to the gedanken. >Case 1 - static There is emitted 10e+19 photons by a pulse of a stationary 800 nm IR laser of total energy 2.48 J. All energy is captured by the static detector. >What energy is captured by the detector ? Trivial answer 2.48 J. >But, now *I would like hear from you* your evaluation of both frames for the dynamic case below, when source and detector move toward each other by v=0.6c. Ill do a wave version ( non relativistic version) Its fairly straightforward as in a wave model no energy is gained or lost during propagation, regardless of any relative motion. If all your energy as waves is captured then when the detector moves towards the source at c it receives all the energy. ...2.48 Joules When both move towards each other at 0.6 c the detector captures all the energy...2.48J When the detector moves away, the detector captures all the energy... 2.48 J etc.. I wont do any photon calculations. They violate conservation of energy. >Case 2 - the frame with the source moving toward static detector, so detector perceives 400 nm blueshifted UV instead. >What energy emits the source ? what energy receives the detector ? >Case 3 - the frame with the detector moving toward the static source. >What energy emits the source ? what energy receives the detector
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-15 18:47 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mt9i09$4ak$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #521298 |
On 09/15/2015 06:39 PM, jaymoseley@hotmail.com wrote: > Poutnik... >> Let return back to the gedanken. > >> Case 1 - static There is emitted 10e+19 photons by a pulse of a stationary 800 nm IR laser of total energy 2.48 J. All energy is captured by the static detector. > >> What energy is captured by the detector ? Trivial answer 2.48 J. >> But, now *I would like hear from you* your evaluation of both frames for the dynamic case below, when source and detector move toward each other by v=0.6c. > > > Ill do a wave version ( non relativistic version) Its fairly straightforward as in a wave > model no energy is gained or lost during propagation, regardless of any relative > motion. straightforward, but wrong, providing wrong conclusion. > If all your energy as waves is captured then when the detector moves towards the > source at c it receives all the energy. ...2.48 Joules > When both move towards each other at 0.6 c the detector captures all the energy...2.48J > When the detector moves away, the detector captures all the energy... 2.48 J > etc.. You forgot the moving source emits more energy then stationary one. > I wont do any photon calculations. They violate conservation of energy. You have not shown how they do so yet. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer ) Knowledge makes a great man humble, but a small man arrogant. Eventual Wikipedia articles are provided with intention of a convenient reference, not as an evidence, argument, and usually not as a primary source of my knowledge.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jaymoseley@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-15 10:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9f99cc49-ac09-4a58-8d80-b87d77435751@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #521299 |
Poutnik wrote... >> > When both move towards each other at 0.6 c the detector captures all the energy...2.48J > When the detector moves away, the detector captures all the >>energy... 2.48 J > etc.. >You forgot the moving source emits more energy then stationary one. Per second, a source that moves towards a detector does emit more radiation than one that doesnt move relative to the source. But as you can see from the ev to nm tables it has a different rate then that imagined by the photon model. But in the gedanken case where a finite amount is emitted and that total amount is detected then... In the photon model it does emit more energy. But not in a wave model. Because a wave model carries no mass or momentum. It doesnt have a mechanism to add energy at any point. If you think it does....Then show me the link to a reliable reference that shows how a classical wave model carries mass or momentum.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-15 19:57 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mt9m2q$m2c$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #521302 |
Dne 15/09/2015 v 19:10 jaymoseley@hotmail.com napsal(a): > Poutnik wrote... >>>> When both move towards each other at 0.6 c the detector captures all the energy...2.48J > When the detector moves away, the detector captures all the >>energy... 2.48 J > etc.. > >> You forgot the moving source emits more energy then stationary one. > > Per second, a source that moves towards a detector does emit > more radiation than one that doesnt move relative to the source. both absolutely and per second, same as our ball ejector analogy. > But as you can see from the ev to nm tables it has a different rate > then that imagined by the photon model. It has not, you just interpreted it incorrectly. > But in the gedanken case where a finite amount is emitted and that > total amount is detected then... > In the photon model it does emit more energy. But not in a wave model. In wave model as well. > Because a wave model carries no mass or momentum. Read again physical textbooks. As neither waves nor photons have mass. But both photons and classical EMR wave do carry momentum. > It doesnt have a mechanism to add energy at any point. Read again physical textbooks, also learn from mechanical analogy. > If you think it does....Then show me the link to a reliable > reference that shows how a classical wave model carries mass or momentum. They do not carry mass, but momentum. It is your homework, as it is in textbooks of classical wave electrodynamics. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web