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: The Ghost In The Machine on 9 Oct 2005 20:00 In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson) <H@> wrote on Sun, 09 Oct 2005 21:59:00 GMT <db4jk1hda18n1gno0lhsmto6rr7hajprip(a)4ax.com>: > On Sun, 9 Oct 2005 14:53:39 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: > >> >>"bz" <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message >>news:Xns96EA50DFCC736WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139... >>> H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>> news:f4mgk1ls96rgfjoplja5l2munbhkctkaii(a)4ax.com: >>> >>>> In the mirror frame, the source is moving in a circle around that >>>> mirror. >>> >>> >>> False. >>> >>> In the mirror's frame, the location of the source is constant and the >>> angle >>> of incidence of light from the source is constant. >>> >>> Proof? If what you stated were true, the source would orbit around the >>> mirror and the angle of incidence of the light would change through 360 >>> degrees with every rotation of the platform. >> >>Consider a non-rotating frame centred on the mirror. >>It is not inertial because the origin is accelerated >>but the source orbits the mirror at the same rate that >>the mirror rotates. >> >>It's hard to imagine a more awkward frame to choose > > Now that you have gotten the picture right , please explain it to the other > morons here. > > We have an approximate example of this in the case of the moon orbiting the > earth...with the earth circling the sun and also rotating about its own axis. The moon's orbit is not perfectly circular. Semimajor axis: 3.84400 * 10^8 m Perigee: 3.63104 * 10^8 m Apogee: 4.05696 * 10^8 m Eccentricity: 0.0554 (0 = circular) Average orbital speed: 1.022 * 10^3 m/s Minimum orbital speed: 0.968 * 10^3 m/s Maximum orbital speed: 1.082 * 10^3 m/s This according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon, which is admittedly not the most definitive resource, but it does have quite a bit of data on planetary orbits. > > All the time, there is no radial motion between earth and moon....but light > from the moon is 'transversely doppler shifted'. > > Similarly, there is no radial motion between any mirror of the > Sagnac and the previous one. No, but there is acceleration. The mirrors are experiencing a force. > > If you want to write a joint paper on this I am quite willing. > I think the world should know why Sagnac DOES NOT refute the BaTh. Yes, it should; then it can peer-review your work. Of course it would help if you had some actual math? :-P [.sigsnip] -- #191, ewill3(a)earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless.
From: Henri Wilson on 9 Oct 2005 21:00 On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 08:21:49 +1000, Timo Nieminen <timo(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: >On Sun, 9 Oct 2005, it was written: > >> Timo Nieminen <uqtniemi(a)mailbox.uq.edu.au> wrote: >> >On Sat, 8 Oct 2005, it was written: >> >> Timo Nieminen <uqtniemi(a)mailbox.uq.edu.au> wrote: >> >>> 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". >> >> much higher densities involved here. > >Sure, but I still don't see how it can be explained in terms of ballistic >emission theories with extinction. The density is high enough so there >should be essentially immediate extinction. So why dragging? I never liked the expanation of the fizeau experiment. > >> >Anyway, it looks difficult to quantify accurately. But an explanation of >> >Fizeau-Fresnel in terms of your theory would be nice. Any ideas? >> >> It would be easier to explain Ohm's Law at 1 degK. >> >> You seem like the kind of person who would ridicule the suggestion that >> electrical resistance would suddenly approach zero below a critical threshold >> temperature....or that the PE effect threshold was nonsense. >> >> Timo, physics is riddled with THRESHOLDS. > >Sure. Especially the physics of complex systems. People believe that >superconductors exist since they can be experimentally demonstrated and >there are working theoretical explanations. > >If you can provide a reproducable lab experiment and a working theory, >then people will believe you. Otherwise, you have an ad hoc proposal >that appears to be experimentally untestable, contrary to currently >accepted theory that works very well in laboratory experiments, and is, in >the orthodox view, not needed. > >At the very least, if you can develop some real theory - quantitative, and >not just hand-waving - then you're over the first hurdle. The cosmic redshift is a place to start. The cause is that light slows down as it travels, due to 'atom dragging'. We roughly know the rate of slowing. > >> >> 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. >> >> No they don't. >> Einstein said that, not Maxwell. >> Maxwell assumed an aether as a reference. > >Yes. According to Maxwell, EM waves and changes in EM fields move at c wrt >the ether. Note that this means not at c wrt the source when the source >is moving. Ah! But in aether theories, measured OWLS is still c because absolute observer movement changes the observer's measuring equipment. > >> Einstein merely replaced that aether with a postulate. > >The Maxwell equations holding in all inertial coordinate systems, and >permittivity and permeability of free space being the same in all inertial >coordinate systems gives you Maxwellian electrodynamics, with EM waves at >c relative to the _observer_ in all cases. No it doesn't. It moves at 'c' wrt its source. That's all we know. You don't know they hold in all inertial systems and all they produces is the value of the universal constant 'c'. >I think it's interesting that whereas EM waves at c relative to observers >means EM waves are not at c relative to a moving source, the SR >composition of velocities means that you can have both: c wrt observers >and c wrt sources at the same time. The velocity addition equation is just a reiteration of the second postulate. It has never been proved. 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: Henri Wilson on 9 Oct 2005 21:10 On Sun, 9 Oct 2005 23:25:50 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:rm4jk1trn1pjobaipmlluur1jiq49hfju5(a)4ax.com: > >> On Sun, 9 Oct 2005 15:09:55 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> >> wrote: >> >>>"George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in news:dib6vp$472$1 >>>@news.freedom2surf.net: >>> >>>> Consider a non-rotating frame centred on the mirror. >>>> It is not inertial because the origin is accelerated >>> >>>agreed. >>> >>>> but the source orbits the mirror at the same rate that >>>> the mirror rotates. >>> >>>In the mirror's FoR, the universe is rotating in a rather eccentric way, >>>but the source is fixed in position at a contant distance and angle. >>>This must be true as all mirrors and source are fastened securely to a >>>base- plate of some sort. >>> >>>You (Henri or George) seem choosing a POINT on the mirror, perhaps a >>>point at the exact center of the mirror and are using that as your >>>origin, but looking at things around that point from a FoR that is >>>parallel to some reference in the lab FoR. >>> >>>Thus you have NOT chosen the mirror's FoR, but a hybred FoR that is >>>related to the turntable AND to the lab in a rather complex way. >>> >>>> >>>> It's hard to imagine a more awkward frame to choose >>> >>>Agreed, except, perhaps, for the photons FoR. >> >> The moon is rotating around the earth, which is also rotating daily. >> The moon's radial speed wrt Earth is zero. It wouldn't make any >> difference if the earth rotated in 1 day, 28 days or 1000 days. > >I think you have it backwards. > >The Earths radial speed wrt the moon is zero. If you replace the earth with >a satelite in a lunar syncronous orbit, there would be no doppler shift on >signals between that satelite and the moon. so what? > >On the other hand, the moon swings around the earth every 28 days. The >earth rotates every day. Those motions will give doppler shifts on signals >from moon to earth. there is no significant radial velocity between Earth and moon. > >> Sagnac DOES NOT refute the BaTh. > >I think you are wrong. > >> Sagnac clearly supports either my transverse doppler theory' my 'photon >> axis' theory or good old fashioned aether, of which SR is a subset. >> . > >I think you are right, one of the above. I think you should learn some basic physics. 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: Henri Wilson on 9 Oct 2005 21:13 On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 00:00:18 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine <ewill(a)sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote: >In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson) ><H@> > wrote >>> >>>It's hard to imagine a more awkward frame to choose >> >> Now that you have gotten the picture right , please explain it to the other >> morons here. >> >> We have an approximate example of this in the case of the moon orbiting the >> earth...with the earth circling the sun and also rotating about its own axis. > >The moon's orbit is not perfectly circular. > >Semimajor axis: 3.84400 * 10^8 m >Perigee: 3.63104 * 10^8 m >Apogee: 4.05696 * 10^8 m >Eccentricity: 0.0554 (0 = circular) >Average orbital speed: 1.022 * 10^3 m/s >Minimum orbital speed: 0.968 * 10^3 m/s >Maximum orbital speed: 1.082 * 10^3 m/s > >This according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon, which is admittedly >not the most definitive resource, but it does have quite a bit of data >on planetary orbits. Ghost we really don't have to know all that. Just accept that the moon has virtuall NO radial velocity wrt earth. The same applies to the Sagnac source in its relation with the first mirror. >> All the time, there is no radial motion between earth and moon....but light >> from the moon is 'transversely doppler shifted'. >> >> Similarly, there is no radial motion between any mirror of the >> Sagnac and the previous one. > >No, but there is acceleration. The mirrors are experiencing a force. Who cares? >> If you want to write a joint paper on this I am quite willing. >> I think the world should know why Sagnac DOES NOT refute the BaTh. > >Yes, it should; then it can peer-review your work. Of course it >would help if you had some actual math? :-P A circle is a circle. X^2+y^2=r^2 there is all the maths you need. > >[.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".
From: Henri Wilson on 9 Oct 2005 21:21
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 00:53:00 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >news:db4jk1hda18n1gno0lhsmto6rr7hajprip(a)4ax.com... >> On Sun, 9 Oct 2005 14:53:39 +0100, "George Dishman" >>>Consider a non-rotating frame centred on the mirror. >>>It is not inertial because the origin is accelerated >>>but the source orbits the mirror at the same rate that >>>the mirror rotates. >>> >>>It's hard to imagine a more awkward frame to choose >> >> Now that you have gotten the picture right , please explain it to the >> other >> morons here. > >Lucky guess, you didn't say whether you >meant a rotating or non-rotating frame. I thought you could work that out. Non rotating. >> We have an approximate example of this in the case of the moon orbiting >> the >> earth...with the earth circling the sun and also rotating about its own >> axis. >> >> All the time, there is no radial motion between earth and moon....but >> light >> from the moon is 'transversely doppler shifted'. > >Transverse Doppler is another name for time dilation >so doesn't occur in Ritzian theory (nor I presume in >your BaT). You have been talking to Jim Greenfield for too long. A form of transverse doppler DOES exist in the BaTh...the point being that a signal from an orbiting source doesn't come from the point it appears to come from. When the source APPEARS directly overhead, it has really moved on a little. When it IS REALLY directly overhead, light reaching the observer came from a point before the vertical and therefore has a transverse velocity component. > >> Similarly, there is no radial motion between any mirror of the Sagnac and >> the >> previous one. >> >> If you want to write a joint paper on this I am quite willing. I think the >> world should know why Sagnac DOES NOT refute the BaTh. > >But it does Henri. Doppler would produce a second >order output while the Sagnac Effect is first order, >and transverse Doppler doesn't exist in Ritzian theory. Well I haven't looked into that. The main point is htat there is no significant radial velocity between the source and the first mirror. > >Try again. I wil persevere for as long as necessary. > >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". |