Much Ado About Nothing by Peter Jackson

Peter,

I wrote: "X wavecrests hit the STATIONARY observer in a unit of time. Accordingly, the speed of the waves relative to him is XL, where L is the wavelength. Then the observer starts moving towards the light source so that X+Y wavecrests hit him in a unit of time. Accordingly, the speed of the waves relative to the MOVING observer is (X+Y)L. Is that correct?"

You replied: "Yes, but you must specify WHICH waves, because the interaction creates a 2nd set, which are the ones the processor (or brain) 'times' to find f. We may term there 'refracted' waves R. The incident waves 'I' are those which include both the approaching waves and those 'passing by' the lens (also then equivalent to 'forerunners'). "Accordingly, the speed of" THOSE 'I' "waves relative to the MOVING observer is (X+Y)L" The speed of the R waves, which is the only ones we can directly 'time' to find frequency, is then c' = X/L'."

Let me end the discussion in this way:

The incident (I) waves are RELEVANT.

The refracted (R) waves are IRRELEVANT.

The "community" (or some guardian angel) gave you high rating but I am afraid your essay will fail in the end. That the Doppler frequency shift has nothing to do with brain processes is more than obvious.

Pentcho Valev

Peter,

I am not interested in useless quarrel. Just a few simple hints:

k/s should read km/s, it's quality and it's ... geometry should read its ...

I agree with Pentcho: Your essay will fail in the end. Otherwise I would lose my trust in the ability of the jury.

Eckard

Peter,

A light pulse reaches a clock and stops it, then (part of) the pulse reaches another clock and stops it. The speed of light as measured in the inertial system to which both clocks belong is equal to the distance between the clocks divided by the time it takes the light to cover this distance.

If the inertial system starts moving towards the light source with speed v, then the speed of light AS DEFINED ABOVE:

(A) shifts from c to c'=c+v.

(B) does not shift, according to special relativity (c'=c).

Which is true, A or B?

Pentcho Valev

Eckard

Your misnomer is not difficult to identify. As head of a university department I have to assess students capabitity to learn physiology. With mature students the problem is different, but it is resolvable.

Let me first state my interpretation of the part of Peters multi aspect theory you disgaree with, but in your own field, of sound. An emitter, even a voice, but consider a trumpet, emits at a wavelength and frequency. If it then starts moving, then the wavelength (so frequency) in the propagation medium changes. So we have delta L. Now consider perhaps the detectors eardrum, to which an oscillation rate is imparted. (We are now entering areas where you nor anyone has given deeper thought);

Those oscillations are (so initially try to 'emit') at some wavelength L. If at rest with the medium this may match the L of propagation (we may here ignone n). BUT, and this is the crux, if the eardrum start moving; the changed frequency of arrival means a changed wavelength of re-emisssion L' alongside the changed frequency. The logic is impeccable, it matches observation, and it is as brilliant as it is unfamiliar. With light waves the ontology is, surprisingly for many, identical. Lambda and frequency deltas are inseperable.

But back to my students, and a more extreme example. An 18yr old told from youth that 'babies grow in the stomach' can normally accept that they do not. They grow in the womb. But a 50 year old may for 3 times as long have imagined the babies feeding off the digested food IN the stomach! They then struggle to 'step back' as Peter says, drop that assumption and replace it with something totally alien. (That was only one analogy).

Accepting that this CAN happen is 'half of the battle'. But in the course of a thousand new things to learn, many more aged minds will come across a complete block and, sadly, have to be failed.

At present you are a fail. You have done well with step one of five, but believe step one is all there is! Then, even even worse, you assume it it you who understand everything and that the others are fools. Well the fact here is that they are not fools! They have comprehended more new steps than you in this case. If you just consider that there MAY be more to understand, then you may be able to succeeed. It will be rewarding, as it was for me.

This problem is not uncommon in education. You come across it each time you find someone insisting some nonsense is fact. But in this case the 'boot is on the other foot!' (do please forgive the coloquialism).

I find to succeed in overcoming this problem is rewarding for all. Peter was correct in stressing the greater than normal mental effort it takes in this case, but it is quite possible, and I do hope we find success. I will keep a watching brief.

Very best wishes.

Judy

In an iota; Think of that change to L' from the drum as it moves, compared to unchanged L. A Delta L to L' is undeniable. Repeat application is prescribed and should clear up the complaint!

ironical is a weak word in fact. I have pity for you. In fact you are simply a badteam of nothing for nothing.

one solution that said, RETURN AT SCHOOL please . Because there you reach the paroxysm of the stupidity.

Mr Vallet ahahahh is the friend of Whilhelmus.

Judy N wrote on Oct. 13, 2012 @ 09:23 GMT: "An emitter, even a voice, but consider a trumpet, emits at a wavelength and frequency. If it then starts moving, then the wavelength (so frequency) in the propagation medium changes. So we have delta L. Now consider perhaps the detectors eardrum, to which an oscillation rate is imparted. (We are now entering areas where you nor anyone has given deeper thought); Those oscillations are (so initially try to 'emit') at some wavelength L. If at rest with the medium this may match the L of propagation (we may here ignone n). BUT, and this is the crux, if the eardrum start moving; the changed frequency of arrival means a changed wavelength of re-emisssion L' alongside the changed frequency. The logic is impeccable, it matches observation, and it is as brilliant as it is unfamiliar. With light waves the ontology is, surprisingly for many, identical. Lambda and frequency deltas are inseperable."

Judy,

If the eardrum (observer, detector, receiver) starts moving, the frequency and the speed of the waves relative to it/him change but the wavelength remains unchanged. You can clearly see this here.

Both you and Peter refer to possible changes of the wavelength AFTER the waves have crossed the outer boundary of the eardrum (observer, detector, receiver) but this is irrelevant.

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho,

I have seen your desire to learn, but you must be aware it is currently disabled by your beleif that you do not need to. The video you cite nowhere claims that wavelength does not change. It simply does not ostensibly consider that case. There will be a thousand similar explanations, but none falsify the implicit inverse relationship of f and lambda. From 10yrs old we teach that relationship for any speed. It has never been falsified.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavelength You will also find a thousand other references to this on the web. If there IS a wave, so a 'frequency,' then there must be a wavelength.

You cannot claim that some real physical property is 'irrelevant' without a very rigorous proof. In this case it must be relevant because it is required to derive the local propagation speed.

The only possibility for it not to be relevant is if you can find any new propagation speed from f alone. Which is of course not possible. It has only been the common 'assumption' that we needed special relativity to do this for us. Peters simple and beutiful kinetic logic removes that need.

The fact is that there are TWO relevant wave speeds. One in the propagating medium between the emitter and detector, and one in the medium of the detector (though as Peter points out this is limited to the case of a detector made of matter, so forming a new 'medium'). c+v then always exists 'relatively' but never exists once it's interacted with matter. The 'relevant' part is that this renders the illogicalities of the current paradigm unnecessary. Surely nothing is then more relvant.

Various teaching techniques can overcome this 'familiarity' issue. None are 'instant' as the ability to remove oneself from the familiar view and look afresh is needed. In this case perhaps imagine yourself very small, and a refractive plane between co-moving media half way between and emitter and detector, both at rest in their own 'frame' or medium. imagine the effect on wavelength at that moving refractive plane. But as I wrote to Eckard, only repeat doses are effective. (Peter referred to 'rehearsal', which is equivalent).

I wish you well in your quest for truth. But it will never be as we assume.

Judy

If a macroscopic mechanical spring operated mantle clock is moving close to and horizontally to the surface of the Earth at a constant velocity, will it physically undergo length contraction and/or time dilation. Will its time keeping function slow? Will the clock keep slower time than an identical clock sitting stationary on the surface of the Earth. Will its size or shape change compared to an identical stationary clock sitting on the surface of the Earth?

If a macroscopic mechanical spring operated mantle clock is moved from a stable high position above the Earth, stationary with respect to a point of the surface of the Earth, to a stable position on the Earth, will it have changed size or shape and/or rate of its time keeping function due to General Relativity type effects? Will it physically undergo length contraction and/or time dilation?

I am not asking about effects due to acceleration. There is no acceleration of either clock with respect to the Earth. There is no velocity for the stationary clock. There is constant velocity for the clock moving parallel to the Earth. I am not asking about photons or doppler effects. I am not asking what the clocks look like from different perspectives. I am asking what happens to the clocks themselves with regard to relativity type effects? Please disregard any atmospheric resistance. The moon could be substituted for the Earth.

James

Dear Peter,

I'm back now from a trip (sorry for the late answer). Thanks for your words about my essay. With great interest I read yours.

After a second look, it seems we share the same passion. You have a feeling for the complex net of relations between all objects in the world. I agree, the space is not empty: it is full of interactions (in form of radiation etc.).

The physics should never depend on a coordinate system but the choice of one is important to make a measurement (a precondition of the measurement process). I have the feeling that quantum mechanics is also connected with this circle of problems.

For more comments I have to read the essay again (which I will do). I like the style as play (a kind of drama?).

Best Torsten

Doppler's Effect when Source is at rest and Observer is Moving. As you can see, Judy, the frequency and the speed of the waves relative to the observer change while the wavelength remains constant.

Pentcho Valev

Dear Peter,

Apologies for this delay in replying. I readily agree with the hypothesis that space is `not empty'. In considering space as an emergent feature which derives from underlying physics, this definitely becomes apparent.

However, I could not understand your remark on my page that Continuous Spontaneous Localization emerges from your ideas. I could not figure out from your essay how that is happening.

I understand from your essay that you accept special relativity. Given this, ideas such as `change of speed of light on arrival' are very hard for me to comprehend. Having grown up as a conventional physicist, I have, like other physicists, got habituated to seeing new ideas implemented through a mathematical formalism and equations. You have a more intuitive way of looking at things, which makes it hard for me to follow many things you say. But I do like your poetic and enthusiastic expression.

I am afraid I do not have anything more useful to say, at the moment.

Best regards,

Tejinder

Judy Nixey and Peter Jackson,

I am confident that electromagnetic waves behave as calculated. Nonetheless they are difficult to measure because we do not have anything that moves faster. Acoustic waves propagate about a million times more slowly. That's why I restrict my argumentation to the latter.

Do we need infinitely many spaces in relative motion in order to describe acoustic waves? As long as we do not calculate with phonons one medium is definitely enough.

The essay 1448 by RKN has a decisive advantage. Its Fig. 1 shows to the left a velocity c+v, then a medium with larger than 1 refraction index n and to the right a new velocity c. If I understood the figure correctly then v is the velocity of the body with n relative to the medium. This is obviously wrong. The velocity of a wave does not depend on emission but only on the medium.

You are nurturing false hope for rescuing SR and MMX. That's why I feel obliged to object. The idea of fresh c with each re-emission would allow velocities of light in excess of c. You merely adapted to common opinion when you admitted observed superluminal velocities only apparent ones.

Lanyi observed a blast. The expanding front initially moves faster than with c until it gets the front of a wave, and then it continues to propagate with constant velocity. I admit, physicists have a problem with the imagination of electromagnetic waves as plurality of single photons. I am an old EE.

Eckard Blumschein