From: "JM Albuquerque" Newsgroups: pt.ciencia.geral Subject: Re: Velocidade da luz... Date: 30 Sep 2000 18:11:41 +0100 "SMMT" wrote: > > > > Vê lá se a seguinte explicação não é muito melhor que a explicação que a > > teoria da relatividade dá e que conduz ao Big-Bang: > > http://www.word1.co.il/physics/bigbang.html > > :-) > Ainda me falta a cena do "epola" mas do que li realmente sim ,eles têm > argumentos. O "epola", se bem me lembro, são uma espécie de partículas que segundo a teoria do autor constituem o éter e explicam um mecanismo para a força da gravidade, força de inércia e eventualmente mais qualquer coisa. Vê na seguinte página: http://www.word1.co.il/physics/article.html A história completa começa aqui: http://www.word1.co.il/physics/index.html Esta é apenas uma das várias teorias alternativas que eu conheço. É evidente que não devemos aceitar nenhuma teoria sem primeiro comprovar. Todas elas têm falhas graves. Na verdade, ainda andamos à procura de uma explicação para o Universo. > > > > Pessoalmente já tive oportunidade de demonstrar com um exercício que a > > > > velocidade da luz não é independente da velocidade do observador > > > > > > como ? > > > > Posso colocar aqui em inglês? > > Suponho que sim. > Faz favor. Cá vai: Herein I claim the 2nd Postulate of Special Relativity to be wrong because the velocity of light is not independent of the observer's velocity. Unfortunately, I cannot express the idea without a draw. With a draw it is much easier to understand and the results become much clear. At the end everyone will see that light speed is not independent of the observer's velocity and many will have the head spinning around to figure why not. If you want to follow the exercise you must see the draw at anyone of this newsgroups: - pt.binarios - - Please look for "2nd Postulate SRT Wrong". Herein I propose a new type of exercise. This new exercise is different from all others. It is a movie. The main difference is the following: The usual exercises talk about space ships travelling at high speeds and all the calculation can be done in a paper at two or three dimensions. One point and two or three dimensions is all we need to do calculations. This new exercise is different. It is a movie. The only thing we need to calculate is the "frame rate" of the movie seen by two different observers. Anyone can do the calculations. The "frame rate" is a "frame" in a given unit of time You will see in the exercise that a "frame" correspond to a distance. Thus, "frame rate" is indeed a velocity. The calculation is about the speed of light seen by two different observer's. More correctly, it is about the "frame rate" seen by two different observer's. It correspond at the same old exercise in a paper but here it concerns the calculations for many points. The final result we want to compare is the variation of the result for each single exercise at each single point. Resuming, we want to calculate the "changing result rate". This exercise cannot be interpreted as Doppler shift (red shift or blue shift). It is not about frequencies. I've use "frame rate" because it is easy for calculations. Like velocity L/t is easier then dL/dt. A "frame" is nor a pulse of light. Notice that reality is continuum of movie "frames". The real "movie" is what people see in telescopes. The integral in order of time of the "frame rate" is the measured light speed for each observer. EXERCISE: Imagine our spiral galaxy. Milky-Way. The Earth lies in one of the spiral arms at about 2/3 from de core of the galaxy. The exact dimensions doesn't matter. One of the observer's "X" is always at rest on Earth regarding the frame of reference at the centre of the galaxy. Our frame of reference is the core of the Milky-Way. The other observer "#" start travelling at a constant speed of 0,5c towards the core (centre) of the Milky-Way. In the core of Milky-Way a very strange phenomenon occurred. Explosions, or something like that, with light motion. Those explosions produce a movie. Both observer will see that movie when the images reach them. In the exact moment the explosions begin, one of the observers depart from Earth at 0,5c towards the core of the galaxy. The other stays on Earth. None of the observer's haven't seen the explosions yet because light take time to reach the Earth. The light from those explosions travels at "c". Looking at the draw I've mentioned we have: Light from the explosions travel's at "c" from the centre of the galaxy towards both observer's. The explosion came at a sequence of frames: A, B, C, D, E, ... at a given time interval of one Year. The distance travelled by light in one Year is one "unit", the "unit" chosen for the horizontal divisions of the horizontal axis of our draw. The observer travelling at 0,5 c will travel a distance equal to half "unit" in the other direction. Now, wall you have to do is to have a close look at the draw of this exercise, and follow the sequence of light coming from the centre of the Milky-Way, for both observer's. The axis frame of reference to this exercise is the core of Milky-Way. When "frame 7" or "G" image occurred at the centre, both observer's are seeing the explosions from the core of the galaxy. At this precise moment "G" the observer at the Earth will see the first image "A" and the travelling observer is seeing the image "D". That "frame 7" (or "G") is our start point for counting time. Now we count the Year's: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. At the Year 6, the travelling observer reach's the core of galaxy, when the image "M" happens to occur. 6 Years have past since both observer are seeing the same movie "Explosions at the core of Milky-Way". In those 6 Years the observer on Earth have seen 6 or 7 "frames", namely: A, B, C, D, E, F and G. Bur, in those same 6 Year's, the travelling observer at 0,5c have seen 9 or 10 "frames", namely: D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L and M. This lead me to conclude that the travelling observer in watching the movie at a higher rate than the observer at rest. The movie "frame rate" for the travelling observer is 50% higher than the measured "frame rate" for the observer stationary on Earth. Because the integral in order of time of the "frame rate" is the measured light speed for each observer, I can conclude that light speed is not independent of the observer's velocity, thus the 2nd postulate of SRT must be wrong. Notice: This is not a case of "simultaneity". The observer's don't see the same image at a given moment. It doesn't matter what they are seeing at a given moment. Also, it doesn't matter when the events occurred. The only important thing is the "frame rate". The "frame rate" is independent of the event's occurrence. The integral in order of time of the "frame rate" is the measured light speed for each observer. JM Albuquerque