Geryllax Vu

On 10/7/2016 at 11:53, sophiecentaur said:

If the space inside the train is wide and uncluttered (a passenger train with large, open doors between each carriage) - and also sealed from the outside, carrying the air inside with it, then you can assume that the speed of sound through the air inside the train will also be c. So you would expect the sound of the whistle, through the inside, to arrive in L/c (=2.92 s). So you can expect two versions of the tweet to arrive at the rear of the train. Tweet..tweet, separated by 0.24s.

The frequency of the sound heard by the platform observer would be lower than that of the observer in the calaboose. You could say that the Doppler Effect is applied twice on the way from the whistle and the observer at the back, one, a decrease in frequency and the other an increase back to the original.

I have been struggling to find a clear and concise way to describe the point of the experiment and you have grasped it.  I believe that as I have presented it your assumption is correct that an enclosed compartment  is measurably different from an open reference frame.  I agree that it would be possible to hear two tweets as you say because the air molecules in the moving compartment  may slow down or speed up the sound wave depending on the sound wave's direction of travel.  But a sound wave traveling through still air will always be c.

I agree with your observation that there will be no Doppler effect for the train observer because the source and receiver are moving in the same direction at the same speed so the waves spread out at the source but squeeze together at the receiver thus cancelling each other out and leaving the original frequency.  I plan on using this difference for the two observers in the future.

Yes, I agree with you Andrew.

On 6/19/2016 at 16:54, Stub Mandrel said:

Sound sits transmitted by air molecules moving.

If the air as a mass is moving at a significant speed (say 250 km/s relative to the galactic centre) the propagation of a sound wavefront will be slower in the direction of movement as the energy to accelerate the molecules is constant and therefore can't move them as fast in the direction of movement due to relativistic effects.

Extreme example,  a nuclear explosion of a bomb moving very close to c sends out a wavefront of particles at an equally high velocity in all directions, to a stationary observer the explosion wavefront will barely be progress at all in the direction of travel but will be left stationary in the opposite direction. Siound propagation is not materially different from the propagation of particles by an explosion.

I personally don’t believe that empty space is a vacuum, Stub.  It has cosmic dust and various cosmic particles in it through which sound can propagate.  Additionally, these particles can affect the velocity of any waves, light or sound, propagating through them.  So if a light source is submerged in any medium such as air, water, or Bose-Einstein condensate then the waves emitted in any direction will be slowed down by some amount as compared to the speed of light in a vacuum.  If the medium is set into motion, then the light wave propagating in one direction will be slowed down according to the Fizeau partial convection formula.  In the opposite direction it should be sped up but I will accept the top speed limit of light for now.  This I think means that light can’t be used to calibrate space-time diagrams because any light experiments conducted in the presence of a medium will mean that light will have different speeds depending on which direction the light wave propagates relative to the medium, from the source to the receiver.  This is similar to sound wave propagation.

On 6/2/2016 at 20:00, Earl said:

im not keen on constants or maths in that fact, its all too human.

http://www.livescience.com/29111-speed-of-light-not-constant.html

 

I'm still fine-tuning this paper but I think it is essentially correct.  This is an excellent link Earl,  empty space is not empty.  Every vacuum has some stuff in it that alters the velocity of light in a mathematical way, I would agree with that.

acey and andrew s

If light propagates in the presence of a moving medium within a reference frame, not in a vacuum, then the velocity of the light will show some mathematical variation according to the Fizeau partial convection formula.  I think I mentioned in the post that "not every reference frame is an enclosed compartment."  Thus the medium within an enclosed compartment has the velocity of the compartment, but in the open the medium has zero velocity relative to the light beam this results in two different values for the speed of light in the two diffferent types of reference frames.  You have to ask to which reference frame does the medium belong?  This dependence of the wave speed on the motion of the medium is similar for light and sound.

Sorry SAAC for not seeing your comment. I am still working through my ideas an I was surprised by any comment!!!

To try to answer your question, the transfer of momentum I am speaking of is like from the throwing arm of the person on the train that I mention in the blog entry, the arm velocity adds to the train velocity; or the air molecules within a moving train car which then adds to or subtracts from the speed of sound when it is emitted from a source fixed to the wall of the train car. So a person on the enclosed train car will travel a shorter distance in a longer time, or a longer distance in a shorter time. The rider on the train will not notice any chage from a measurement taken at rest. But by simply opening the window,so the air/medium is disconnected from the motion of the train car, then the air is at rest while the train moves through it, which makes this experiment put the principle of relativity to the test. The air molecules bumping into each other transfers momentum and carry the sound wave slower or faster in the process. This makes the train car appear to be at rest when the train is obviously in motion.

Thnx for you comment. Conservation of momentum is an important part of Einstein theory. A woman named Noether wrote about momentum.

When you say 

 

" Transfer of momentum and addition of velocities mask the velocity of the reference frame considered in motion, and the principle of relativity as a scientific concept prevents the detection of this motion"

 

 

What do you mean by "transfer of momentum", transfer between what?  

Exactly! Mums do keep a lot of secrets.  We are at rest, and in motion at the same time, it seems.  Physics plays a cruel trick on us.  But I am getting a glimpse at the man behind the curtain (Wizard of Oz).  If I can get this to work, then maybe there will a little less philosophical paradox in our lives.

I

I'm curious where this line of thought ends up. I've had a similar hypothesis that special relativity is a feature of all wave phenomena, not limited to light. My conversations in the past with others have generally ended with the "in a vacuum" or "but you can go faster than sound" cudgels, which seem thoroughly irrelevant if you stick within the wave's frame of reference and don't cheat by using a foreign wave for measurement.

I want to definitely encourage you to pursue finding the transition point between sound wave phenomena and light wave phenomena. I was thinking along similar lines; "faster than the speed of sound."

My journey began with my misinterpretation of the Null Result of the MM experiment. And as often happens in science, finding the incorrect answer to a particular question leads to the correct answer for a completely different question.

Einstein’s relativity may be out of reach but Newtonian and Galilean relativity have broken down with the application of my hypothesis. I think I have made a previously unseen, or scientifically unseen, phenomena but everyone knew it was there. So as Einstein artificially constructed this entire theory of reality, this unseeable reality, then he tried to sneak it in the back door with the Lorentz transformation and bending of space-time to account for what he knew was there, but could not measure. The artifice of the maths in one reference frame as being the observer at rest; and an observer in another frame as accounting for the motion of the first observer, still mathematically irks me, sorry, but the equations unquestionably work.

I think that the seemingly unassailable high, thick, walls between reference frames as put forward by the principles of relativity, crumble like Jericho’s walls under an attack of sound waves as from the Shofars of the Israelites.

So I think I will leave an attack on Einstein and Light and Astronomy for someone much smarter than me, maybe I will write a book on Acoustic Relativity, for now. I offer as a possible starting point, that while Einstein begins with c as the speed of light, and then defines our mathematical reality; I begin with c as the speed of sound, and work up from there.

http://gerrybharris.blogspot.com/

Thanks for your response. I am trying to think through some of the same issues that you are bringing up. The symbol c applies to the speed of light as well as the speed of sound, which was a surprise to me. I think it reflects their nature as constant waves that stay constant no matter if the source is moving or at rest (both of waves violate Galilean invariance, and display the Doppler Effect).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_sound

You are getting ahead of me a little bit; I will probably have something that deals with astronomy in a couple of weeks. If I can get sound waves and light waves to follow the Michelson-Morley formulas then that should show more of a connection between sound wave phenomena and light wave phenomena. It may be just a goal or puzzle to work on; it just keeps unraveling thus far.

The Earth hurtles through the Cosmos with a thin layer of atmosphere clinging, fortunately, to the surface of the planet. So all the air molecules (medium) are sharing in the motion of the Earth; their gained momentum masks the Earth’s motion. But if an object like an automobile is in motion, while the surrounding air is at rest, then I am proposing that the Michelson-Morley formula should apply which includes the letter, c, for both light waves and sound waves.

So, I am saying that the Earth carrying the air along with its motion is different than an auto, or deck of Galileo’s ship, which I mention in my other blog entries. Most types of Earthbound vehicles in motion do not carry the air along with their motion, they are separated; this, I propose, can mathematically fit the MM formula.

LOL Im just trying to find an opening or weakness in Special Relativity. I think I have found the glitch in Newtonian or Galilean relativity (sound waves and light waves violate invariance). Einstein may be on the horizon. Will listen to any suggestions to jump from sound to light.

A friend in Japan made fun of me, pointing out a video for chewing gum "Space Ad" that uses a sound microphone attached to a transmitting dish antenna, which directs sound into outer space. I thought it was pretty funny.

The link to youtube is below:

I know how you feel about the boredom thing, some of my best ideas have come from just such moments! I am trying to get to Radio Astronomy, but you are getting ahead of me. The Doppler Efect may be the crack of the door I need to slip in. The Ha (hahnium) may be a good candidate for this if it is an eletromagnetic radiation that is easy to apply to celestial bodies moving in tandem (geosynchroonus satellite or moon) with a velocity, relative to what??? I would like to read anything you might write up.

This question was answered afirmatively by Jim Pivarski on his website, Ask Mike (Michael Faraday):

http://www.coffeeshopphysics.com/letters.php#2013_05_19_21_57_49_100150