Jump to content

sgl_imaging_challenge_2021_2.thumb.jpg.72789c04780d7659f5b63ea05534a956.jpg

andrew s

Members
  • Content Count

    3,545
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

andrew s last won the day on November 1 2020

andrew s had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

4,598 Excellent

4 Followers

Profile Information

  • Location
    Cheshire

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I am getting old. I intended to say that section A2 of this , that I posted before, shows the dispersion relation in anisotropic coordinated is equivalent to the isotropic one. It does so by derivation from Maxwell's equations in anisotropic form. As they are equivalent no experiment can differentiate them. However, as the authors point out the equations are symmetric and more elegant in isotropic form. All everyday science adopts the symmetric convention and it is built into the current SI units. Regards Andrew
  2. Not at all. The only claim I am making is that you can't empirically tell them apart. It is because of this Robin's experiment can't prove the isotropy of the one way speed of light. We have for good reason adopted, by convention, the simplest symmetrical solution. You were claiming you could empirically differentiate between them which I hope the papers convinced you you can't. I can transform a Sun centered model of the solar system to an Earth centred one. The equations of motion would be complex and give little or no insight into the dynamics. However, it would be em
  3. While you can't do what you propose light pules transmitted together in the same direction would stay in lock step so in a sense yes you would not see a beams move ahead of each other. Regards Andrew
  4. Photutils a python package has a source extractor but I have not tried it. Regards Andrew
  5. Indeed, by why do think they would change? Non standard SR (i.e. anisotropic c) does not impact this any more than a Lorentz boost (change of inertial frame) where the frequency of the observed light will be red or blue shifted. This doesn't impact the atom In its rest frame. Energy is frame dependant. Being hit by a "stationary" car does not hurt as much as one doing 40mph! In fact anisotropic c is equivalent to a change of reference frame. The underlying Minkowski spacetime is unaffected. Regards Andrew
  6. I see little point in discussing this further with you @Whirlwind. I have provided links to peer review papers on the topic which clearly show that what I have advocated is as empirically justified as conventional SR. Have you bother to look at any of them in detail?. The last one I linked to provides for GPS and Maxwell's equations which covers one of your objections and Robin's. For what it's worth I agree conventional SR provides the simplest equations and is thus to be prefered. Do you object to the Hamiltonian or Lagrangian formulations of classical mechanics because they
  7. First rate. Looking forward to the results. Regards Andrew
  8. Do publish it. It would make a nice change from yet another Orion. Regards Andrew
  9. Somewhat disappointingly, both @robin_astro and @Whirlwind have tried to discredit my position by association with the view of Flat Earth proponents. However, what I am saying is mainstream science see here for a review . I am not sure if I have convinced Robin with my recent posts but if not I propose he write up his position and submit it to a physics journal as if accepted he may well get a Nobel prize. Regards Andrew
  10. Yes, I agree, energy is frame dependant for example the red and blue shift of spectral lines emitted by sources moving away or towards you. Regards Andrew
  11. @Whirlwind you don't have to take my word for it. Just read the papers I linked to. Anisotropic values of c are perfectly valid and compatible with SR and QM. Again don't take my word for it look up the peer reviewed papers in the links I gave. Equally, there is no empirical evidence the speed of light is the same in both directions. It is, despite Robin's claim, a convention. It was a fundamental insight of Einstein's that led him to SR. In your GPS example the clock has changed it's relative motion to you and you need to make SR corrections for that which include the Einstein c
  12. Too much wine during lock down. Regards Andrew
  13. There can be advantages with over sampling with CMOS cameras as it allows you to reduce telegraph noise . See here section 5. Regards Andrew
  14. In the current SI system you are correct. It adopted the Einstein synchronisation convention. However, this was only done after many measurements found it to be invariant and the strong experimental evidence for SR. It is a sensible choice but not the only one that could have been made. The new SI system , unlike the old ones, rests on the validity of both QM and SR if they prove to be wrong things would have to change.. Regards Andrew
  15. As you will see in my last post to Robin you can have different theories that can't be experimentally differentiated and you then have to choose a convention. This is normally done to find one that gives the simplest equations. You can write earth centered equations for planetary motion but they are much more complex that for a sun centered system. Newton's law F = ma does not hold in a rotating frame and you have to add additional forces. I finally found Robin's argument had the isotropy built into the equations he used. Just as you would verify Newton's law in an inertial frame but no
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.