Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #390588

Re: Question....Good Question.

Show all headers | View raw

On 22/08/16 22:38, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote:
> El domingo, 21 de agosto de 2016, 17:20:02 (UTC-4), HGWilson, DSc.  escribió:
>> On 21/08/16 21:31, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

>>>     Light moves at c relative to the Earth's ECI frame,
>>>     AND it moves at c relative to its source.
>>
>> To an observer at rest in the earth's ECI frame, the light moves at c+v
>> relative to the source. (as illustrated in a ring gyro for instance
>> where the two beams depart the source at c+v and c-v in the non-rotating
>> frame.)
>> ...but the sun's ECI frame, is moving relative to the Earth's...so an
>> observer at rest in the Sun's frame will see it depart at c+u.
>> How does the light know in which of the two frames is it supposed to
>> move at c?
>
> Since the GPS very good operation, isotropic light speed c in the ECI is a well
> established experimental fact. Have you any objection to that?

Yes. It has nothing to do with the ECI frame. The GPS system works 
simply because all orbiting clocks are in absolute synch and each orbit 
ephemeris is very accurately known.

> See the following thread in this same group:
>
> Selected list of well established experimental facts by the GPS operation
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.physics.relativity/xMHRGCzFbRM
>
> Please, can you specify from where do you take the "sun's ECI frame" concept
> that you are mentioning here? In the context of what theory or conception are
> you using it? Maybe the Ptolemy's one?

An emitted photon moving at c relative to the earth's ECI frame will not 
move at the same speed as one emitted by the same source at c relative 
to the Sun's ECI frame. That should be obvious.

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Question....Good Question. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-21 09:19 +1000
  Re: Question....Good Question. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-20 21:12 -0400
    Re: Question....Good Question. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-20 22:28 -0500
  Re: Question....Good Question. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-21 09:07 +0200
    Re: Question....Good Question. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-21 19:28 +1000
      Re: Question....Good Question. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-21 13:31 +0200
        Re: Question....Good Question. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-22 07:20 +1000
          Re: Question....Good Question. Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 05:38 -0700
            Re: Question....Good Question. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-23 05:46 +1000
              Re: Question....Good Question. Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 14:30 -0700
                Re: Question....Good Question. "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-08-23 08:11 +1000
                Re: Question....Good Question. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-22 18:41 -0700
          Re: Question....Good Question. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-22 23:07 +0200
      Re: Question....Good Question. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-23 09:35 -0500
    Re: Question....Good Question. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-21 11:48 +0200
      Re: Question....Good Question. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-21 14:05 +0200
      Re: Question....Good Question. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-22 07:22 +1000

csiph-web