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: Henri Wilson on 11 Oct 2005 06:32 On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 09:43:54 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote: > ><jgreen(a)seol.net.au> wrote in message >news:1129022542.245488.163810(a)g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >| >| george(a)briar.demon.co.uk wrote: >| > Henri Wilson wrote: >| > > On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 00:53:00 +0100, "George Dishman" ><george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >| > > >your BaT). >| > > >| > > You have been talking to Jim Greenfield for too long. >| > >| > I don't think I can disagree with that! >| >| Well up yours! >| You wouldn't just be miffed because I spotted the flaw in your "time >| dilation" animation? Now I find I was mislead by the sagnac one as >| well! No mention in there of "600rpm". It clearly is to represent the >| rotation of the AIRFRAME; maybe ONE rpm. >| A completely different kettle of Welsh salmon......... > >Dishman is a idiot, he thinks the speed of light is infinite when >the permittivity and permeability of a medium falls to zero. >Obviously he's an aetherialist, like Wilson. Hey, watch it A. I'm a H-aetherist. Big difference! >| roflmto! >| George, DELAY = time change; time change = VELOCITY change (due to) > >v = dx/dt does not mean v = dy/dt. > >Einstein's > > (1 -cos(phi).v/c) >f' = f ---------------------------- > sqrt(1 - (dx/dt)^2/c^2) > >reduces to > >f' = f(1 -cos(phi).v/c) = f(1 -cos(90 degrees).v/c) > = f(1 - 0) = f > >and there is no transverse shift. > >The phuckwit Einstein thinks v = dy/dt as well as dx/dt. > > >| > >| > > >> 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. >| >| And yet George claims there IS transverse doppler in the train >| scenario, and WHERE in SR does it say that the shortenning of the >train >| ALSO involves the ceiling approaching the floor???????????????? >| SR is ONE directional; > >Yep... v = dx/dt, not dy/dt. > > >| An airplane changes its note as it flies over because the distance to >| it alters; a helicopter hoverring above at constant altitude does NOT >| exhibit a different note than if on the ground below. >| You need to understand the CAUSE of doppler ref emr; it is due to >| relative velocity of the emr particles, not magical >| frequency/wavelength changes. >| > >"Ignorance is educable; stupidity is forever".--wisest thing Uncle >Snipcrap ever said. >Androcles. 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: "Androcles" <Androcles@ on 11 Oct 2005 09:53 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:k35nk15294dgrh1g11ggoqqvpiibjhkvjh(a)4ax.com... | On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 09:43:54 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote: | | > | ><jgreen(a)seol.net.au> wrote in message | >news:1129022542.245488.163810(a)g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... | >| | >| george(a)briar.demon.co.uk wrote: | >| > Henri Wilson wrote: | >| > > On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 00:53:00 +0100, "George Dishman" | ><george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> | | >| > > >your BaT). | >| > > | >| > > You have been talking to Jim Greenfield for too long. | >| > | >| > I don't think I can disagree with that! | >| | >| Well up yours! | >| You wouldn't just be miffed because I spotted the flaw in your "time | >| dilation" animation? Now I find I was mislead by the sagnac one as | >| well! No mention in there of "600rpm". It clearly is to represent the | >| rotation of the AIRFRAME; maybe ONE rpm. | >| A completely different kettle of Welsh salmon......... | > | >Dishman is a idiot, he thinks the speed of light is infinite when | >the permittivity and permeability of a medium falls to zero. | >Obviously he's an aetherialist, like Wilson. | | Hey, watch it A. | | I'm a H-aetherist. | | Big difference! Not to light there isn't. Here's a list of pictures. Indicate which one has you fairy dust and explain why. You can keep the list, I'm a wizard, it's magic, it'll grow longer each day. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CauchyFunctionalEquation.html Oops, sorry. That's adult material. You won't understand that...don't let Bilge see it, it's pornography to him. Here it is... Not h-eather, suitable for 5-year-kids: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/archivepix.html h-aether: http://imaginary_nematode.home.comcast.net/papers/Alvager_et_al_1964.pdf Androcles. "Ignorance is educable; stupidity is forever".--wisest thing Uncle Snipcrap ever said. | >| roflmto! | >| George, DELAY = time change; time change = VELOCITY change (due to) | > | >v = dx/dt does not mean v = dy/dt. | > | >Einstein's | > | > (1 -cos(phi).v/c) | >f' = f ---------------------------- | > sqrt(1 - (dx/dt)^2/c^2) | > | >reduces to | > | >f' = f(1 -cos(phi).v/c) = f(1 -cos(90 degrees).v/c) | > = f(1 - 0) = f | > | >and there is no transverse shift. | > | >The phuckwit Einstein thinks v = dy/dt as well as dx/dt. | > | > | >| > | >| > > >> 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. | >| | >| And yet George claims there IS transverse doppler in the train | >| scenario, and WHERE in SR does it say that the shortenning of the | >train | >| ALSO involves the ceiling approaching the floor???????????????? | >| SR is ONE directional; | > | >Yep... v = dx/dt, not dy/dt. | > | > | >| An airplane changes its note as it flies over because the distance to | >| it alters; a helicopter hoverring above at constant altitude does NOT | >| exhibit a different note than if on the ground below. | >| You need to understand the CAUSE of doppler ref emr; it is due to | >| relative velocity of the emr particles, not magical | >| frequency/wavelength changes. | >| | > | >"Ignorance is educable; stupidity is forever".--wisest thing Uncle | >Snipcrap ever said. | >Androcles. | | | 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: George Dishman on 11 Oct 2005 16:19 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:52olk1p9j1ich7753d46s1cj0b62rtqfik(a)4ax.com... > On 10 Oct 2005 05:07:51 -0700, "george(a)briar.demon.co.uk" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>Henri Wilson wrote: >> >>> 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. > > Yes That's why I stated "a FORM of tranverse doppler" OK, the difference is important. More later. >>> >> ... 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 'continuous movement' idea supports my 'photon gyro' concept. Not really. > George, if a sagnac is rotating at constant angular speed, Do the fringes > move > continuously or remain steady but offset? The latter, steady but with an offset proportional to the speed of rotation. >>> 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. > > If it rotates rapidly enough there will be the afforementioned 'type of > doppler'. Nope, the distance from source to mirror is constant so no Doppler. The fact that it is delayed makes no difference, there is no radial component as you say yourself later. >>> >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 they are mathematical >>descriptions only. That prediction is a null result >>which doesn't match the observations so Ritz is ruled >>out. > > How can Ritz be ruled out when we now know tat there is no radial velocity > betwene each component? The question is difficult to answer because you are ignoring what happens on the other legs, but crudely no radial velocity means no change of fringes, yet the fringes do change. As I said, you are choosing a difficult frame to work in. All frames must give the same result so pick an easy one. >>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. > > My 'photon axis' theory works. Nonsense, you haven't even shown any equations that predict what the output would be so you don't know yourself whether it would work or not. Nor have you applied those equations to say the MMX to see if it would predict a non-null result for that. Any new theory you propose has to be able to pass all the tests that have been done, not just one. George
From: George Dishman on 11 Oct 2005 16:33 <jgreen(a)seol.net.au> wrote in message news:1129022542.245488.163810(a)g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > george(a)briar.demon.co.uk wrote: >> 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! > > Well up yours! Only if you take it as insulting. You regularly only state half of a question (remember the differences when Jeff and I both answered you a few weeks back?) so I'm well used to having to infer what you mean. > You wouldn't just be miffed because I spotted the flaw in your "time > dilation" animation? There was no "flaw", I just never drew the bit you were expecting because my PC crashed. > Now I find I was mislead by the sagnac one as > well! In what way Jim? > No mention in there of "600rpm". That's right, you only asked half the question and I had to pick a number at random for the other half. Now if you thought about it, you would realise that the problem for the designers of such units is that they would have to get a lot more fibre in the box than you guessed, and measure to a small fraction of a fringe. > It clearly is to represent the > rotation of the AIRFRAME; maybe ONE rpm. > A completely different kettle of Welsh salmon......... Henri and I were talking about the Sagnac experiment on a rotating table in the lab for which 600rpm would not be unreasonable. State the whole question and these problems won't arise Jim. >> > 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. > > Exactly! THAT is the scenario with a vertical beam in the railway > carriage That's right, the chap on the train sees the light hitting the floor to be the same colour as the bulb (ignoring gravitational effects!) > (this ref time dilation, and the "cause" thereof) > None there either. That's right, it is only determined by the trackside observer. >> 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. > > roflmto! > George, DELAY = time change; time change = VELOCITY change (due to) Try reading what Henri said before butting in Jim. I don't mind you joining the conversation but you need to know what was being talked about. >> > 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. > > And yet George claims there IS transverse doppler in the train > scenario, When did I do that? I don't think we ever talked about the colour of light bulb, did we? > and WHERE in SR does it say that the shortenning of the train > ALSO involves the ceiling approaching the floor???????????????? > SR is ONE directional; > An airplane changes its note as it flies over because the distance to > it alters; a helicopter hoverring above at constant altitude does NOT > exhibit a different note than if on the ground below. > You need to understand the CAUSE of doppler ref emr; it is due to > relative velocity of the emr particles, not magical > frequency/wavelength changes. Jim, I'm curious about how you think this would work. Blow into a whistle and you get a note. Put the whistle on a string and whirl it round your head so that it is always the same distance from your ear. Do you think the note would be the same or different? I wonder what Henri would say. George
From: George Dishman on 11 Oct 2005 16:41
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:k35nk15294dgrh1g11ggoqqvpiibjhkvjh(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 09:43:54 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> > wrote: >> >>Obviously he's an aetherialist, like Wilson. > > Hey, watch it A. > > I'm a H-aetherist. > > Big difference! Really? I thought you were into ballistic theory. >>v = dx/dt does not mean v = dy/dt. In what follows, v is the speed so v = sqrt( (dx/dt)^2 + (dy/dt)^2 + (dz/dt)^2 ) so sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) reduces to sqrt(1 - (dx/dt)^2/c^2) only if dy/dt = 0 and dz/dt = 0, i.e. if the x axis is defined as the direction of motion of the source. >>Einstein's >> >> (1 -cos(phi).v/c) >>f' = f ---------------------------- >> sqrt(1 - (dx/dt)^2/c^2) >> >>reduces to >> >>f' = f(1 -cos(phi).v/c) Only if dx/dt, or to put it another way since Androcles has already assumed dy/dt = 0 and dz/dt = 0, only if the source is at rest. >> = f(1 -cos(90 degrees).v/c) >> = f(1 - 0) = f >> >>and there is no transverse shift. .... for a source at rest. Obviously. George |