> On Nov 7, 3:29 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas
...@Hogwarts.physics_p> wrote:
> > "Unified_Perspective" <agall...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:9740c464-d4a5-464e-b980-ecbe48a3d482@y32g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> > An Absolute Chronometer
> > ===================================================
> > Well done, you've caught up to Newton.
> > "Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature
> > flows equably without regard to anything external, and by another name is
> > called duration: relative, apparent, and common time, is some sensible and
> > external (whether accurate or unequable) measure of duration by the means of
> > motion, which is commonly used instead of true time; such as an hour, a day,
> > a month, a year." -- Principia Mathematica.
> > Anything else Newton can help you with?
> > ===================================================
> > If the space between observers here on earth and a distant optical
> > source were a perfect vacuum then the speed of the light rays coming
> > from that source would depend only on the motion of that source
> > compared to our position or motion. In that case, time dilation and
> > frequency shift would be completely and solely dependent on relative
> > motion.
> > As a practical matter the intervening vacuum is extremely good, but
> > not perfect. As this is the general case the result of Fizeau's
> > experiments on the effect velocity and frequency of light moving
> > through water also apply to light moving through an imperfect vacuum
> > Similarly, Fizeau's results apply to Sagnac and Wang devices as these
> > results are present in media of greater density than a perfect vacuum
> > and so conform to the equation;
> > V=(c/n+(v*(1-1/n^2)
> > While the frequency is effected according to;
> > (please see Wikipedia)
> > where;
> > is the velocity of waves in the medium
> > is the velocity of the source relative to the medium
> > is the velocity of the receiver relative to the medium.
> > In the limit where the speed of the wave is much greater than the
> > relative speed of the source and observer (this is often the case with
> > electromagnetic waves, e.g. light), the relationship between observed
> > frequency f and emitted frequency f0 is given by:
> > Observed frequency
> > f=(1/v(sub f,sub r)/c)*f(sub o)
> > Change in frequency
> > (Please see the wikipedia reference;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect)
> > From this it can be clearly seen that the Doppler change in frequency
> > is dependent upon the wavelength of the emission. As all visibly
> > observable cosmological sources have emission spectra and these can be
> > separated and analyzed it should be possible to measure a differential
> > interval between spectral lines from different sources and make
> > reasonable inferences about the absolute amount of space/time between
> > the source and the observer. While this information would not
> > necessarily be the much sought after and hoped for absolute
> > chronometer for cosmology. With proper calibration, it could certainly
> > contribute to those efforts.
> > What I am herein proposing is that the chromatic aberration of an
> > imperfect vacuum itself could potentially be used as a type of direct
> > reading chronometer for any given observation.
> > Similarly, in radio teloscopy there is I believe usually an assumption
> > that the electromagnetic transmissivness of the media that intervenes
> > between a given source and our observations is perfect.
> > Clearly, this assumption could be critically examined.
> > As a specific example most known high frequency pulsars are sources
> > are observed to be in globular clusters. Regions of space time in
> > which the average matter density is very high and in which it might be
> > reasonable to assume that the imperfectness of the intervening vacuum
> > is similarly quite high. In that case the pulsar effect could be
> > largely due to the Doppler shifting of any rapidly rotating distantly
> > observed source. The appeal of this is that extremely high rotational
> > rates for extremely dense objects like black holes make physical sense
> > while similar extremely high orbital rates for hypothetical binary
> > pairs are problematic.
> > We being in the near neighborhood to our own sun observe that there is
> > a “solar wind” why then do we persist in the assumption that the
> > combined effect of a multitude of solar winds are having no effect on
> > our telescopic examinations of distant sources.
> > A common misconception1
> > “Craig Bohren pointed out in 1991 that some physics textbooks
> > erroneously state that the observed frequency increases as the object
> > approaches an observer and then decreases only as the object passes
> > the observer.[3] In fact, the observed frequency of an approaching
> > object declines monotonically from a value above the emitted
> > frequency, through a value equal to the emitted frequency when the
> > object is closest to the observer, and to values increasingly below
> > the emitted frequency as the object recedes from the observer. Bohren
> > proposed that this common misconception might occur because the
> > intensity of the sound increases as an object approaches an observer
> > and decreases once it passes and recedes from the observer and that
> > this change in intensity is misperceived as a change in
> > frequency.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect)
> > This is a very important observation. It implies that when we are
> > observing very distant and very intense variable sources such as
> > quasar's and neglecting the understanding that we observe them to be
> > so intense for these very reasons. Properly corrected for both pitch
> > and amplitude these very distant variable sources were certainly not
> > as intense on average as we perceive them to have been. Reading the
> > difference between the observed maximum intensity and the minimum
> > intensity we are reading the elliptical distortion of the relative
> > motion along the time axis and when we read the properly corrected
> > mean frequency of the source we are reading the space axis.
> > While it would be wonderful if we could simple compare the observed
> > average frequency of the source and the corrected average frequency
> > and obtain an direct read of the distance. This is not possible. This
> > comparison will only yield an estimate of the relative motion between
> > the source and the observation. Usefull information, but not absolute.
> > However, if a variable source is observed and a comparison is made
> > between the observed Doppler red shift due to relative motion between
> > the source and observer and this is compared to the transverse Doppler
> > shift due to the rotary motion of the source – then an direct
> > inference can be made about the about the amount of both space and
> > time that separate source and observer in an absolute reference
> > frame.
> > An absolute chronometer if you will.
> > It should be noted that that the previously mentioned transverse
> > Doppler red shift will be most apparent when the source is moving at
> > right angles to the observer and that this transverse Doppler shift is
> > only predicted by relativity and not by classical theory.
> > Further, it is part of my hypothesis is that the observed pulsing of a
> > high frequency pulsar source of this type can be in part attributed to
> > the common misconception mention above.
> > In the case of radio astronomy this hypothesis should be testable by
> > segmenting a given pulsar's emission's into elliptic frequency cones
> > analogous to the elliptical light cones illustrated in Hans de Vries
> > pre-publication book “Understanding Relativistic Quantum Field Theory”
> > - "Figure 4.10: Intersections with the 2+1 dimensional light cones"
> > There would be a strong tendency on the part of most annalists to
> > segment the sources observed cycle into pie shaped segments of equal
> > angles, and in fact later on Han's does this. While this type of
> > segmentation is correct for a time corrected and Lorentz dilated
> > frequency diagram the segmentation for a Doppler shifted source should
> > obey the equal areas in equal times relationship first deduced as
> > correct by Johann Kepler for elliptical orbital period of Mars.
> > In summary, I believe that by carefully examining the subtle
> > differences between the true, slightly cloudy space of our universe
> > and the “perfect” vacuum of our idealized models we can infer a great
> > deal about the nature of that universe.
> > The fact that a relativistic transformation of time dilation is
> > frequency dependent and a Lorentzian contraction of space is
> > frequency independent means that by careful comparison of mean
> > frequency as compared to maximum frequency and minimum frequency along
> > with comparison of maximum intensity and minimum intensity it should
> > be possible to make very good inferences about the both the absolute
> > amount of space, “distance” and the absolute amount of time “dis-
> > simultaneity” from by correctly decomposing of the signal from a
> > single variable source. I want to stress however that only careful
> > analysis will do.
> > The differences I propose should exist will be of the same character
> > and quality as the very slight and subtle difference between the
> > precession of the orbit of Mars as understood by classical mechanics
> > and the more nearly correct precession predicted by Einstein.
> > (This posting lost something in the conversion to usegroup format. If
> > anyone wishes a cleaner copy please post an e-mail address and I will
> > send one direct.)
> We can never measure anything exact because the details of finite
> quantities go down to the level of the infinitely small. Just
