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 10 Oct 2005 00:00 In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson) <H@> wrote on Mon, 10 Oct 2005 01:13:59 GMT <0sfjk1l5u67g2hs5is1h9fmv806lkt0sgb(a)4ax.com>: > 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. The point is that the Moon is moving relative to the Earth, and not transversely, either -- except at certain points of its orbit. > >>> 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. Uh huh. Now explain Sagnac, quantitatively. For your edification, if the edge speed is v = r * omega, the time difference around the cable is 4*pi*r*v / (1-v^2) yet calculation regarding at least one variant of Newtonian means gives us a time difference of 0. http://www.physicsinsights.org/sagnac_1.html equations 1 through 4. [.sigsnip] -- #191, ewill3(a)earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless.
From: bz on 10 Oct 2005 05:32 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:ovdjk151mondgp68s4e123ukfipuuphsdn@ 4ax.com: > Say the eclipsing star is only about 1/10 the size of the other. > While the eclipse is complete, the visible part of the star will change > negligibly in brightness. > >> >>>>>>>>> ..unlike Algol's , which has a distinct >>>>>>>>> concavity....just as the BaT predicts. Algol was the ...nary in question. Its constituents are not spherical and the eclipsing star is not 1/10 the size of the other. -- 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: bz on 10 Oct 2005 07:30 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:ucfjk1hnvgtqk6g43p3hq4bg8ebjhh9kam(a)4ax.com: > 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? So, you had it backwards, it is the earths radial speed wrt the moon that is zero, but not vice versa. >> >>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. For some value of 'significant' radial velocity. I suppose that the moons 1.03 km/s orbital velocity is 'insignificant' in some books. That would make the earths daily rotational velocity of 0.46 km/s really insignificant. But if the velocity is insignificant, then the transverse doppler would also be so. Strangely enough, the normal earth-moon radial velocity is considered significant by some scientists. They study it on a daily basis. ..... -- 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: donstockbauer on 10 Oct 2005 07:51 Strangely enough, the normal earth-moon radial velocity is considered significant by some scientists. They study it on a daily basis. *************** Pays the bills. Can you blame them??????? .....
From: george@briar.demon.co.uk on 10 Oct 2005 08:07
Henri Wilson wrote: > 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. The confusion is because you said "In the mirror frame, " ... which means 'in a frame in which the mirror is at rest, i.e. not rotating, hence neither is the source but then went on to say ".. the source is moving in a circle around that mirror." > >> 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. I don't think I can disagree with that! > 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. When the signal received is from a point where the motion is perpendicular to the line of sight, there is no Doppler. Looking at a signal from a satellite coming from an earlier point, the motion is generally not perpendicular so you get Doppler caused by the radial component. The fact that the signal is offset from the current location due to aberration doesn't give transverse Doppler, it is just delayed radial Doppler. > >> 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. Sorry, I should have said it produces continuous movement of the fringes, not a static shift (as I mentioned before). The gamma factor is second order. > The main point is that there is no significant > radial velocity between the source and the first mirror. Right, unlike viewing the Moon or a satellite from the surface of the Earth where the observer's offset from the centre creates a radial component. As long as the distance between the source and mirror is constant, you get no Doppler. > >Try again. > > I wil persevere for as long as necessary. The bottom line is that the Ritzian model gives only a single prediction for the Sagnac experiment and you must get the same result no matter what frame(s and transforms) you use since the are mathematical descriptions only. That prediction is a null result which doesn't match the observations so Ritz is ruled out. That's why I try to keep yuor BaT term separate because if you come up with a new set of equations, they may well produce a different result. The hard part is to propose such a theory that gets Sagnac right without giving a non-null result for MMX or incorrect predictions for other experiments. Until you publish though, that can't be tested. George |