studiot

Yes indeed knowing the difference between invariant and constant is vitally important. +1

I thought you might be using unusual definitions for your words. In both Mathematics and Physics the term the term field has special meaning, (unfortunately different in each) but neither meaning is the same as yours, whcih is more like a rolling mist. I also do not think your use of the term resonance is the usual one. Just as a matter of interest what do you think is 'waving' when you speak of waves ? It is very difficult to hold a sensible conversation when you are not both speaking the same language.

what exactly do you imagine field to be ?

2.611, 3.533 and 1.0067 are no odd numbers ? Pity if instead you didn't post the speed of sound you employed and the fact that you changed my figure of 45 m/s to 50 m/s. That would have saved me looking up the speed of sound on Google and accepting the first reasonable academic answer listed. Of course resulting in pointless exchanges of posts. You still haven't shown how your claim that this method of analysis (Which is classical ) supports a Lorentz transformation into any inertial frame I choose. I choose to work in the ground frame (as you did) and tranform this into the wind frame (as Arago et al did) and I arrive at the fact that the time of transit is dependent on the wind speed, as otheres did. If you think there is a Lorenz tranformation then it should work and give these figures for the transformation to the wind frame. So what is x' = ?(x, t) t' = ?(x, t) in your system ? For interest here is Professor Beiser's alternative and simpler explanation as to why other waves are not a good analog (which was my point). The behaviour of light waves is unique.

This sound authoritative because it contains number. But when I analyse those numbers I find disturbing discrepancies. Firstly in calm weather the outward and return journey should be identical so exacly half of 'roughly 6'. In fact the double journey takes 2000 / 346 or 5.780 seconds. Now this double journey should cancel out any effect of medium motion so if I add up your to outward and return times I make 2.61 + 3.53 = 6.14, not 6.04 as you have. Either way this is quite different from my value. Furthermore adding my outward and return times 1000 / (346 + 45) + 1000 / (346 - 45) = 2.55754 + 3.32226 = 5.88 seconds. Comfortingly close to my undisturbed double journey value.

You seem to have forgotten my comment from Einstein. I see I owe you an apology here: it is actually the second postulate. What he does not describe is the effect of motion of any transmission medium, which is different from other waves where this motion has to be taken into account. This is the key difference with light (in empty space). It has no transmission medium. So c will be invariant in all frames. there is nothing to add to it. An acoustic wave between A and B however, depends also on the motion of the transmission medium.

I retired a few years ago.

What would I do without other members to correct my atrocious spellung ? Thans +1 Wow. And here am I thinks this is easy Physics. It is easy to find the speed of sound in still air (ignoring temperature effects) as 346 m/s So in the ground frame both source and observer are stationary as is the transmission medium. So the time of flight is simply 1000/346 = 2.890 seconds. In the case including the wind, the wind carries the sound pulse forward at an additional 45 m/s so this pulse reaches the observer at 1000 / (346 + 45) = 2.558 seconds. Now a transformation is to another coordinate system and the only one that makes sense here to use is the coordinate system comoving with the wind. Here we have that the observer appears to be approaching the source at 45m/s but the sound is moving at 346m/s in the frame of the wind. So the sound will appear to travel the distance (already measured as 1000m in both systems) in 1000 / (346 +45) = 2.558 seconds. How is that a Lorentz transformation from the ground frame to the wind frame ?

OK consider this experiment: There is a flagpole 1000m from where I am standing with a sound pulse apparatus. My assistant is standing by the flagpole with timing apparatus. At the beginning of the experiment all is calm and still. Then storm Ciaran arrives and there is a wind directly towards the flagpole at 45 m/s. Calculate the time of transit of my sound pulse to my assistant in the cases of still air and of the storm wind and explain how this difference exhibits Lorenz invariance.

Sound waves do not obey Lorenz transformations. This is the key result implied but not explicitly stated (you have to think about it to find it) in the first postulate in Einstein's theory of relativity.

Since you propose measuring a time difference of the order of 10-11 seconds, please explain the electronics of your 'start pulse', which must be several orders of magnitude smaller. Please also evaluate the accuracy to which the synchronisation must be achieved.

Is this homework ? The mathematical model you seek is called a Markov process. This is the process underlying what is popularly called artificial intelligence. The good news is that the concept is very easy to understand. The bad news is the quantity of data that needs to be collected and processed to achieve any reasonable sort of correspondence between the model and reality. For AIs literally trillions of cases were examined to obtain realistic the required realistic processes.

To me this has the appearance of posting someone's homework. So tell us what you have thought about so far.

So you are offering a theoretical calculation (if your theory is correct) not an experiment as I originally read your piece.

Welcome Carl and congratulation on producing such a coherent set of ideas +1 I am saying plus one despite the fact that it is a pity that so many of those ideas are oversimplistic. As a for instance I expect you have been reading too many popsci articles and books. The sort of waves we consider now and that are needed to explain wave - particle duality to the best of our ability are nothing like as simple as the ones you describe. The study of non linear waves has led to something called soliton theory which the non linearity can create the entitieswe call particles with their quantum assignments in Quantum Field Theory. We call these entities Solitons. I also suggest that you review your ideas about spin because nothing is actually physically spinning in quantum spin. In fact older mechanical spin theories yield results that so not match observation. Anyway good luck with your investigations.

Maxwell only offered his view that then best estimate of the speed of light is the same as the EM waves his equations predicted. He therefore suggested that light was some sort of EM wave. Maxwell also offered a totally mechanical mechanism for the propagation of light which satisfied all the known properties. He said that this model was wrong and that he envisioned such a mechanism only to show that it could be done. The person whose experiment definitely showed that EM waves have a finite speed was Hertz in 1888. Fizeau tried this in 1851 Miller's experiments were repeated by several workers, none of whom were able to reproduce his results. Miller's explanations of this became ever more tenuous as others reported failure to reproduce. His results were finally discredited when analysed by a proper statistician in 1955. Barlow's Manchester Physics book A guide to the Use of Statistial Methods in the Physical Sciences was not written until 1980. Miller would have benefitted from reading this book. I recommend to you Professor Ferreira's Book 'The Perfect Theory' "A Century of Geniuses and the battle of General Relativity" Even Einstein artgued with himself, and changed his mind and theory a couple of times in the first half of the 20th century. The book goes 50 years beyond that. and was bang up to date with modern views in 2014. Note also that modern treatments of Special Relativity are quite unlike the early 20th cent treatments and that Minkowski was a mathematician who died tragically early, shortly after introducing his 4D world view.

It is one thing that scientists look for when they can get their hands on extra solar system material or date from a probe that has left the system (eg New Horizon). That is about as far as we can reach at the moment. There is, of course, a lot of guesswork about neutron stars, black holes and such. We have yet to find any evidence to support such a hypothesis though.

Why not half past ten ?

Yes indeed it harps back to 'tired light' , but the issue I was raising is not to do with comparison of local and global distances. Quite simply we rely on the notion that space is both isotropic and homogeneous.. If one section of space was different from another so that characteristics of the light changed as it passed through then we could not rely on spectroscopy and chemical process on Earth being the same as at astronomical distances away, nor on the Astrophysics to estimate distance, nor on relativity to describe transmission etc etc.

If this were ever found to be the case it would upset most of Physics and Chemistry and all the other sciences that rest on them.

Taking pause for thought and consideration is excellent practice. +1 Most presentations of relativity make a big fuss of transformations early on but never say why we should care. Pages of text, formulae and diagrams to wade through are often given to wade through, right at the outset, with no apparent reason for the effort. I think this is counter productive for many students, Einstein himself did not think this way. He always held that we should be led by the Physics and then pick the appropriate Maths to match. Perhaps you would also like to think about and even discuss this ?

Please don't take this as a personal cirticism but you are definitely overthinking this by a very long way. Small wonder you are having trouble. As I said, strictly proportionality is not about equations, although of course proportionality can lead to an equation. The way to calculat the answer to my question by proportion is as follows. 225 millilitres of drink contains 10 grammes of sugar So 1 millilitre of drink will contain 1/225 as much sugar. That is 10/225 grammes. So 175 millilitres of drink will contain 175 times as much sugar or (10/225) * 175 grammes or about 7.8 grammes. Check: 175 ml is about three quarters of 225ml so I would expect it to contain about three quarters as much sugar or about 7.5 grammes. Read this a few times I have laid it out in great detail.

The action of charging lead-acid batteries leads to an increase in the strength of the sulphuric acid. The reaction between hydrogen sulphide and sulphuric acid is well studied and leads to the release of sulphur dioxide (and elemental sulphur). So why would a large enough quantity of hydrogen sulphide be released in this way ? https://harvest.usask.ca/bitstream/handle/10388/etd-12202010-111342/PatriciaThesis.pdf?isAllowed=y&sequence=1 I agree with Cuthber and Exchemist and noting that the source is youTube which has become heavily contaminated with disinformation these days I am highly skeptical of the reports.

Proportion, proportions and proportionality do not necessarily refer to equations in Maths or Science. Consider the following question. If there are 10 grammes of sugar in a 225 millilitre cup of drink How many grammes of sugar are there in a 175 ml cup of the same drink ? Please indicate by what method you would solve this question to try to find your difficulty.

Thank you for the long response. Can we please separate the history of the study of the nature and propagation of light from this discussion as you have several important omissions that you are perhaps not aware of. By itself the history is an interesting subject and we could certainly discuss that in another thread where all might learn something new. As far as I know Galileo did not offer a principle of relativity. He did, how ever offer a principle of inertia, which is what perhaps you are referring to. But for the purposes of this thread if you know of some reference showing that Galileo made the statement you claim above please post it. Neither was this The Principle of Relativity of Einstein. His exact words from the 1905 SR paper were No mention of physicists locked in sealed rooms determining anything! However he adds a further comment which many readers miss, as all the words in the paper are packed with import: I will now develop the import of this latter statement in terms of the homogeneity and isotropy of space and link that to Einsteins two postulates. When we say there is an event such as a light pulse from your source we need to specify two things. Where is it ? and When is it? To do this we require up to five pieces of information. These are : up to 3 spatial coordinates, one time coordinate one reference base or origin for the time coordinate and one combined reference base or origin for the spatial coordinates. The issue of the 'absoluteness' of the references bases will come out in the subsequent treatment. It is no use just offering x, y, z, t values - they are meaningless without knowing where and when they are measured from. The good news is that these last two pieces of information 'drop out' of the calculations when wew measure the distance beteen two events and the time difference between them as l2 = (x2 - x1)2 +(y2 - y1)2 and (z2 - z1)2. and dt = (t2 - t1) dt and l are examples of invariants. dt is invariant with regard to translations of the origin of the time axis and l is invariant with regard to translations of the space origin. When following Einstein's original paper the significance of the second quoted remark becomes apparent. Although the paper is entitled the electrodynamics of moving bodies, most of the paper follows their kinematics only. Dynamics is only introduced in the last two sections at the end. Are you comfortable with the distinction between kinematics and dynamics ? 1) Homegeneity The arbitraryness of the origins of space and time are referred to as the homogeneity of space and time respectively. This is equivalent to postulate that every chunk of space looks and behaves like every other chunk of space and that every chunk of time looks and behaves like every other chunk of time oe in other words they are homogeneous. 2) Isotropy That the length l is the same (invariant) when measured in a coordinate system that is rotated, but not translated, with respect to the first is a simple piece of elementary geometry. This leads to the conclusion that there is no preferred direction in space. So space is regarded as isotropic. Since space has the property if transmitting light we have your isotropic light velocity. With regard to the example in your post, Please explain why there is a problem with the observer viewing light from S1 and S2 (with the maths). Note that we cope with this everday day almost everywhere, but it really only interests the astronomers where the distances involved makes a difference to light sources.