Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: OWLS is not equal to c
Next: Mathematical Inconsistencies in Einstein's Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation
From: bz on 8 Oct 2005 19:51 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:4gjgk11be4aadfp4vu9a0hehnc4hmie7sm(a)4ax.com: > On Sat, 8 Oct 2005 17:24:03 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> > wrote: > >>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>news:pjodk1hp01816bqaj639orkc2k05fnuat2(a)4ax.com: >> >>> On Fri, 7 Oct 2005 19:01:12 +0000 (UTC), bz >>> <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >>> >>>>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>>>news:kuv5k15e65jjb9f44egkok6qht68k537c0(a)4ax.com: >>>> >>>>> Oh, there could be. The brightness curves would be just about the >>>>> same. The main difference is that the one involving an eclipse is >>>>> dead flat between the troughs. >>>> >>>>That is assuming 'uniform brightness' of the star being eclipsed >>>>(which isn't true because of the geometry of a spherical radiatior) >>>>and no gravity lensing. >>> >>> That sounds like the argument of a desperate person. >> >>That doesn't even sound like an argument based on science. > > What the hell has spherical geometry to do with the constancy of a > star's brightness? > >> >>Ad hominem attacks are the last refuge of desperate people. >>When you make such attacks, you put yourself into that catagory. >> >>Download starlight pro from >>http://www.physics.sfasu.edu/astro/binstar.html and play with it a bit. > > Can't you see the flat sections between the eclipses? Of course. But the 'flat sections between the eclipses' disappear when the stars are large and close together, although the region may look rather flat. > >> >>You will quickly find that the way you can get 'flat between the >>troughs' is by making the stars spherical. > > I don't know what you are trying to say here Bob. If the star is not > being eclipsed, its brightness should remain almost dead constant > whatever its shape and spin. Just as the earth receives different amount of illumination from the sun when the sun is close to the horizon vs when it is overhead, our sun and other stars emit different amounts of light at different angles of radiation. This produces an effect called 'limb darkening'. This makes a body eclipsing the central region of the star 'intercept more of the star light destended to head in our direction' than the same body does when it eclipses an off-central region of the star. > >>If you want the troughs flat bottomed, >>turn off limb darkening and make sure the plane of the orbit allows >>total or annular occultation to take place. > > I don't want the troughs flat bottomed. It is obvious how that can be > achieved. Is it? >>>>> ..unlike Algol's , which has a distinct >>>>> concavity....just as the BaT predicts. >>>>> -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
From: Henri Wilson on 8 Oct 2005 20:01 On Sat, 8 Oct 2005 13:44:13 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >news:ph6fk1hmlf1hfm5ddp8ai3a1totfk0a1rt(a)4ax.com... >> On Fri, 7 Oct 2005 23:34:40 +0100, "George Dishman" >> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >> wrote: >> >>> >>>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >>>news:lgpdk1p5mbj1dipuqa52n434e94li2hhtn(a)4ax.com... >> >>>>>> George it is the vector speed of the source wrt the next mirror that >>>>>> matters. >>>>>> >>>>>> That is ZERO. >>>>> >>>>>No it isn't Henri, it is the vector speed of >>>>>the LIGHT wrt the next mirror that matters. >>>>>You aren't bouncing one mirror off the next! >>>> >>>> Your basic physics is sadly lacking George. >>> >>>If you think one mirror hits the next, it >>>is your understanding of the apparatus that >>>is sadly lacking Henri. >> >> George, let me explain. > >Good idea, it helps to flush out any misunderstandings. > >> You are claiming that the speed component that a photon gains due to the >> movement of its source relative to an observer is c+v, where v is the >> speed of the observer relative to the source. > >No. What I call the "lab frame" is an inertial frame >(not rotating) defined such that the central point of >the turntable is at rest. The easy way is to take that >point as the origin. > >I have always said that the speed of the light in the >lab frame is the vector sum of the velocity of the >source and a vector describing the emission. The vector >sum points in the direction of the point where the light >must reflect off the first mirror so that it eventually >reaches the detector because only light that hits the >detector affects the output of the detector (you seem to >think that light that misses the detector defines the >output, a view I have never understood). The magnitude >of the resultant can then be determined by trigonometry. > >> In the rotating frame...which you love....the source's speed >> is at right angles to the first mirror. >> Its speed component towards the mirror is zero. > >In the rotating frame, the source's speed is zero, period! Well OK. I shouldn't have said 'the rotating frame'. Just the mirror frame. In the '1st mirror frame' the source's component velocity in the mirror direction is zero. You neglected to incorporate the mirror's velocity in your previous arguments. In the mirror frame, the source is moving in a circle around that mirror. Its velocity component towards the mirror is zero. >The light is emitted at c from the source but will then >vary along the path as the radius varies between source >and mirror. Since the source is orbiting the first mirror, we have a transverse doppler situation. > >For Ritzian theory, you can convert between those two >frames using the transforms of Galilean Relativity. Source speed doesn't enter directly into the picture. >For an iFOG which has a circular light path, the >analysis is trivial in the rotating frame, the speed >is c/n regardless of rotation therefore the output >cannot vary with rotation. QED. All others frames >must give the same result. ....and that argument applies to SR as well. So sagnac refutes SR. The only one that explains sagnac is LET. However I prefer my 'light axis' theory. Now I can add that Sagnac is just a 'transverse doppler effect'....and you will find that 'gamma' appears in the maths. > >>>>>> Where did Ritz ever say that sagnac should give a null result. >>>>> >>>>>Do the calculation yorself. That's the thing about >>>>>a published theory, anyone can apply it to anything. ><snip to clarify> >>>No "explanations" Henri, show the maths that >>>gives you the predicted output. >> >> Just resort to LET and you will get the Einsteinian version. > >Perhaps you lost the plot, the question was what >does Ritz predict for Sagnac. The answer is a null >result. Ritz has no bearing on Sagnac for the above reasons. In the frame of any component, the previous component moves in a circle...and thus contributes no speed component to the beam. >>>No it isn't. If you insist on using the second >>>mirror frame for all your calculations (a rather >>>odd choice but any consistent choice of frame is >>>as good as any other), then the speed of the light >>>is the vector sum of c in some direction (to be >>>determined) and v perpendicular to path. That >>>isn't zero Henri, remember Pythagoras. >> >> Every component is moving normally wrt the next IN THE FRAME OF THE NEXT. > >If that is to be your approach, you have to analyse >the first leg from source to first mirror in the >frame of the first mirror, then do a transform into >the frame of the second mirror before analysing the >second leg, etc.. You haven't accounted for the >transform effects. At the end of the day, the result >can be no different from either of the two methods >we discussed above - a null result. there are NO transforms. The source orbits the first mirror. Sagnac is a transverse doppler effect. I have finally provided you with a plausible answer. > >> The 'c' part remains c because the beam is not perfectly parallel. The bit >> that >> hits the centre of the mirror during rotation is not the same as when it >> is >> still. > >And you know from personal experience that moving the >beam sideways does not alter the fringes. You said you >had seen this when you used a interferometer. Henri, we >have been over all this before. All right . None of that matters now. I have found the answer. >>> >>>Nope. The speed is c in vacuo for SR and for >>>Maxwell's equations but in anything other than >>>a vacuum it is reduced by the refractive index. >>>That's basic physics Henri, you must know that. >> >> Maxwell couldn't measure his two constants in a pure vacuum because the >> act of measuring would have disturbed the vacuum > >Irrelevant Henri, the speed is c in the lab frame >in SR hence SR gives the correct prediction. Whinge >all you like, you cannot change that. SR just reiterates the aether concept. > >> As Androcles says, the values of permitivity in completely empty space is >> zero. > >Then he is an idiot, that would mean the speed >of light would be infinite in ANY medium. There is not such entity as the 'speed of light'. There can be a 'speed of light relative to..' >>>>>Ritz doesn't have a "built-in gyro" in the theory and >>>>>you said BaT was the same as Ritz. Anyway, as I have >>>>>pointed out, photon spin is known and is related to >>>>>polarisation, and commercial iFOGs use elliptical >>>>>cross-section fibre to prevent changes of polarisation >>>>>reducing the accuracy so think again. >>>> >>>> Ritz died prematurely. >>> >>>His theory is what it is and still predicts >>>a null result. >> >> Like Newton, he didn't have a chance to bring it up to date. >> I'm trying to do that for him. > >Then that will be your "BaT" theory not his. Ritz's >theory predicts a null result. No, George. I have now provided you with something to seriously ponder. The Sagnac effect is based on transverse doppler.... > >George > > HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
From: The Ghost In The Machine on 8 Oct 2005 21:00 In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson) <H@> wrote on Sat, 08 Oct 2005 23:32:15 GMT <8clgk1tn3l0mscnkbs7gc1gd89lsgbuokc(a)4ax.com>: > On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 19:00:06 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine > <ewill(a)sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote: > >>In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson) >><H@> >> wrote >>on Sat, 08 Oct 2005 10:05:12 GMT > >>>>Probably not, but both theories predict the same thing AFAICT. >>>> >>>>In any event, the Earth is moving around in a circle at a speed >>>>of about 10^-4 c (or 30 km/s). >>> >>> And it is rotating with the galaxy >> >>Very slowly, though the actual speed might be 10x faster. >>The good news about the Earth's revolution is that we know >>the period -- it's 1 year. Any variation of lightspeed >>relative to that period should show up fairly readily. > > You are just reiterating the age old notion that ONE EARTH ROTATION is an > excellent time reference. :) It's not a time reference. It's a variance. In short, if there is a c'=c+v effect, v varies by about 2 * 10^-4 over the course of about a (sidereal) year, from any external source. If not...well, then not. But there is a variance in absolute velocity, assuming the concept of absolute velocity holds any water at all. > > Very good Ghost. I'm sure if you had been around 10000 > years ago you would have invented the sundial and maybe > designed stonehenge. Maybe, but we're here and now, not then and there. :-P > >>>>> Anyway, the answer would be the value of the universal constant 'c'. >>>> >>>>For all four constants? >>> >>> How do you know the readings would be the same? >> >>I don't, but I don't see why they wouldn't be. > > I don't either. But the fact that both of us don't see > any obvious reason isn't a proof that there isn't one. True. There's no data here. > >> >>> . >>>>>Why wouldn't they apply? And what equations *do* apply? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>In any event, space isn't truly empty, though intergalactic >>>>>>>>space is probably pretty desolate. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Probably below the 'Wilsonian threshold density', where >>>>>>> strange things happen to light. >>>>>> >>>>>>OK, dumb question #2: what value/quantity/units is the >>>>>>"Wilsonian threshold density"? >>>>> >>>>> Somewhere between 10^-20 and 10^-100 kgm/m3 >>>> >>>>Hm...well, the density of interstellar space is estimated to >>>>be 0.1-1000 atoms per cubic centimeter, which, if every atom >>>>is a neutral hydrogen atom, translates into >>>>1.673 * 10^-21 to 1.673 * 10^-17 kg/m^3. >>> >>> That's within the galaxy. >> >>Yes. >> >>> Estimates are much smaller in intergalactic space. ....10^26 -10^-29 >>> >>> These are all guesses anyway. >>> >>>>http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/DaWeiCai.shtml >>>> >>>>This would suggest that a star the size of our sun (1.9862 * 10^30 kg) >>>>would require a spherical volume of diameter 0.64 light years, at >>>>this density, to form. (It's of course a lot smaller now, :-) but >>>>still big enough to dominate the Solar System.) >>>> >>>>For the entire Universe, a report suggests 3 * 10^-27 kg/m^3: >>>> >>>>http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/universe_density_010307.html >>> >>> Just guesses really. >> >>No way to know without a lot of work and exploring. We can make >>some guesses by establishing G = 6.674215*10^-11 m^3/(kg s^2) >>and trying to weigh the Earth, then the Sun -- but there's a lot >>of unknown stuff out there, not the least of which is "dark matter". >> >>Presumably, that's what's being done here. >> >>> >>> If you want to use my redshift program to see how light is redshifted as it >>> escapes a star or galaxy, you can plug in any density you like. >>> >>> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/redshift.exe >> >>If I wanted to use your redshift program I'd rewrite it in Java. :-P > > Java is terrible to use. The code is pretty easy though. Would you prefer C#? > >>And even then, there's the issue of the Eolas patent, which basically >>precludes, among other things, applets and objects without a license. > > I am not trying to make money out of my programs. You are not. However, website designers are worried about the Eolas patent, as they should be; many Web pages include applets, which can be construed as extrenal programs whose display is embedded within a hypermedia (HTML) page, and are thereby using the patent. To their credit, Eolas is on record as stating that they'll license noncommercial usage of their patent, and there is a workaround using dynamic Javascript. > >> >>http://164.195.100.11/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1='5838906'.WKU.&OS=PN/5838906&RS=PN/5838906 >> >>[.sigsnip] > > > HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe > > "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. > The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong". -- #191, ewill3(a)earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless.
From: Timo Nieminen on 8 Oct 2005 21:58 On Sat, 8 Oct 2005, Androcles wrote: > "Timo Nieminen" <uqtniemi(a)mailbox.uq.edu.au> wrote: > | > | Now, this is IMHO an interesting question of physics. I'd have thought > the > | ballistic theory gang would be interested, since it could lead to a > real > | test of your various ballistic/emission theories. Alas, it hasn't been > | possible to discuss it with Greenfield or Androcles. > > I'll discuss it, but you have to agree to do it on an equal basis, I'll > only cheese off your pompous know-it-all attitude and one-up-manship > games of "Noted refused to answer". I'll cuss you out. Oh, so your "rules of discussion" mean that you consider bad language, insults, claiming that curl E = -dB/dt is different from curl E + dB/dt = 0 in some substantial way? You insist that you can repeatedly ignore or cut relevant questions that are central to the discussion proceeding? Well, let's see if you really mean "equal", or whether you really mean "the Androclean way". The discussion that you ran out on had reached the stage: (a) You claimed that the permittivity and permeability of free space are zero. (b) You agreed that this meant that D and B are both zero in free space. (c) You claimed that all of the Maxwell equations except (the modified) Ampere's law are correct. (d) The above mean that either div E is non-zero or E is zero in free space. You refused to answer which you believe is correct. Either should lead to experimentally detectable effects. Feel free to continue that discussion. If you believe that you made a mistake in your starting assumptions, feel free to say so. > I've started the thread "Capacitors in space". This one has a silly > title. Well, so far that thread doesn't continue the previous discussion at all. Why not just continue where we were at before? -- Timo
From: Timo Nieminen on 8 Oct 2005 23:10
On Sat, 8 Oct 2005, it was written: > Timo Nieminen <uqtniemi(a)mailbox.uq.edu.au> wrote: >> On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, it was written: >>> Timo Nieminen <timo(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: >>>> On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, it was written: > >>>> One very traditional way to measure permittivity is using a parallel plate >>>> capacitor. Neglecting edge effects, the capacitance is C=eA/d where e is >>>> the permittivity, A is the area, and d is the distance between the plates. >>>> Measure the capacitance, and you have the permittivity. >>> >>> That's right. >>> Trouble is, the field itself turns 'empty space' into 'space with a field'. >> >> Given that the electric field of any charged particle extends to an >> infinite distance (or, if the particle came into existence a time t ago, >> extends to tc), > > You are assuming that electric fields travel at c wrt the charge that creates > them.. The Maxwellian prediction, so far in agreement with experiment. If you prefer to assume that the electrostatic potential is instantaneous, then, well, there is no field-free space. >> If the presence of electromagnetic fields is enough to make space not >> "completely empty", then can your claim >> "Maxwell's equations don't apply in completelyempty space" >> have any purpose, since there isn't any "completely empty" space anywhere? > > That's why I have proposed the 'Wilson density threshold' below which the > interaction between photons and matter changes fairly abruptly. > > Above the threshold density, matter constitutes a kind of aether, which > determines the equilibrium light speed in that region. The speed of any light > emitted in that region or entering from outside will tend towards that > equilibrium...not necessarilty very rapidly, though. Essentially the usual extinction argument, but with a threshhold density below which extinction won't occur. I believe this has real problems trying to explain Fizeau-Fresnel "ether drag". Anyway, it looks difficult to quantify accurately. But an explanation of Fizeau-Fresnel in terms of your theory would be nice. Any ideas? >>>> What do you say the effect of having "completely empty" space between the >>>> two plates is? >>>> >>>> Likewise, you can measure permeability by measuring inductance. >>>> >>> Once again, the field itself turns 'empty space' into 'space with a field'. >>> >>>>> Next, you accelerate at 0.0001 c/sec2 for 1000 seconds. >>>>> What values do you now get for the two constants? >>>>> What do they imply? >>>> >>>> Well, the traditional relativistic view is that moving through empty >>>> space won't have any effect, so the measurements would be the same as >>>> before. >>> >>> I don't want to hear the 'traditional relativistic view'. >>> However, the finding might be that the value of the universal constant 'c' is >>> indeed constant. >>> >>> This implies that light emitted by the observer would travel at c wrt that >>> observer. >> >> Sure. It would also mean that light emitted by other sources would travel >> at c wrt that observer. Unless the Maxwell equations are wrong. Prove >> that, and you are a long way towards getting your theory accepted. If you >> can't prove it, then your theory is kaput. > > Maxwell's equations are totally meaningless unless a speed reference is > provided. > For Maxwell, that reference was a universal medium. Use a distance object as the speed reference; doesn't need to be anything local. A coordinate system doesn't need local matter. Of course, making measurements will need local matter. But the measurements don't need to be made in the same region of space in which the Maxwell equations are used to predict the propagation of fields. Still, where is sufficiently empty space - below your threshold density - available, and experimentally accessible? >> Now, this is IMHO an interesting question of physics. I'd have thought the >> ballistic theory gang would be interested, since it could lead to a real >> test of your various ballistic/emission theories. Alas, it hasn't been >> possible to discuss it with Greenfield or Androcles. >> >> What about you? Are you willing to discuss the physics of your theory? > > I am always willing. > I have thought about this a great deal...and repeat what I just stated above. > Speed must have a reference. > > Maxwell's equations do not imply that EM must move at c wrt ALL observers. > They merely say that light generated by a source should move at the value of c > determined by an observer who measures the two constants in the source frame. Not necessarily the source frame. Essentially, the Maxwell equations imply that EM moves that c wrt to the coordinate system being used, regardless of the motion of the source. In general, there is no requirement for the source to be stationary. So, for ballistic theories to be correct, the Maxwell equations must be wrong. However, given that AFAICT your theory is essentially identical to Maxwellian theory in the presence of even minimal amounts of matter makes experimental tests difficult. Galilean ether theories basically mean that Maxwell equations + permittivity and permeability independent of coordinate system must be wrong. >>>> If there was an effect, it would be evidence of "ether wind", which brings >>>> to mind a certain experiment by Trouton and Noble. >>> >>> According to aether theories the instruments would physically change so as to >>> keep the measured values constant. >> >> According to SOME ether theories. Only according to ether theories >> specifically designed to explain such null results. > > I think they all do that. Any that haven't been falsified by experiment do that. The ones that were falsified by the experiments in question didn't predict a null result. Some of the papers from that time make for interesting reading. Trouton's attempt to measure orientation-dependence of electrical resistance was a nice try. -- Timo |