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: George Dishman on 13 Oct 2005 19:29 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:ukptk1lss404faaskc0l67n60lfoco9vnb(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 22:26:27 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: >>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >>news:fleok1hd7adh1f00sgl3hbuphb38cmr6cr(a)4ax.com... >>> On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 21:33:30 +0100, "George Dishman" >>> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>... >>>>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. >>> >>> Assuming the air around you remains still, >> >>I had intended to say that but it got lost in >>the typing :-( >> >>> the pitch would be lower if your >>> head was also spinning in the same direction. >> >>That, the ear being off-centre clouds the >>issue. Suppose we replace the head with an >>omni-directional microphone exactly at the >>centre of the circular path of the whistle? >> >>Hint: no tick fairies. > > Actually, this is quite a complex problem if you want to consider > the finer details of air flow around the whistle itself. No, I was just using it as a source of a frequency which was independent of the motion as long as the speed was high enough. > I should imagine that there would be no doppler shift if > that was ignored. There is no radial velocity. Correct. If not there would be lost ticks. I'm ignoring relativistic time dilation of course, that's a subject for another time. The point is that even though there is a finite propagation time, there is still no "transverse Doppler". George
From: jgreen on 14 Oct 2005 07:08 George Dishman wrote: > "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message > news:a4cok15ekbocc95d6ahg68foum9hm082hn(a)4ax.com... > > On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 21:19:34 +0100, "George Dishman" > > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > > wrote: > > > >> > >>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message > >>news:52olk1p9j1ich7753d46s1cj0b62rtqfik(a)4ax.com... > > > >>>>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. > > > > (Yes I thought that's what came up before. Just checking). > > > > So the total angle moved is calculated by continuously > > integrating that offset with time. > > Units typically have a direct rate output and an > integrator fed from that signal. When used for > fly-by-wire, it is only the rate that matters. > They can be used for navigation too but the > drift then is a limitation. > > > Once again that supports my 'photon-axis gyro' theory. > > Your 'photon-axis gyro theory' doesn't exist, > you haven't published the equations. > > >>> 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. > > > > OK. Yes true. Not wrt the centre of the mirror. > > That should be your clue to the whistle question ;-) HinT: even if the whistle is travelling at >800feet per sec (or speed of sound in air), you will STILL hear it, at the center-------and its tone will be the same! (although you will not know what direction it is coming from) Doppler (sound) is due to CHANGING distance between source and receiver; if the distance is not changing, NEITHER is the frequency observed by receiver > > > CMIIW, but in the case of objects like the Earth and moon, moonlight would > > be > > doppler shifted on the SURFACE of the Earth due to the EARTH'S rotation. The surface is not the center of the moon's orbit! An observer anywhere but at the center of the whistle's orbit will hear a fluctuating note too. Jim G c=c'+v > > Yes, and also because of the distance from the > Earth's centre even if it wasn't rotating (think > of the view of the Moon from a mountain 200,000 > miles high), and also because the Moon's orbit > isn't perfectly circular. None of these are > 'transverse Doppler' however, all just resolve > to the normal Doppler due to the radial component. > > >>>>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. > > > > As far as I can see, there is no radial velocity between any two > > components in > > ANY frame. > > Right, but there are a couple of complex points you > are missing even neglecting the complication of using > different frames for each leg. The origin of the > mirror frame is not inertial, it is moving in a > circle so you get an apparent centrifugal force > between the source and the mirror. That means you > also get "gravitational redshift" and Shapiro delay. > Also the speed of the light varies with the radius > because the frame is accelerating. There are lots > of tricky aspects to consider that come from using > an accelerating origin. > > > So whether or not light speed is source dependent doesn't enter into the > > argument. > > It enters too. If you take all the above into account, > you will still get different answers if you compare a > model where the light is moving at c in the lab frame > or at c+kv where k depends on the number of mirrors. > > >>>>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. > > > > We know why the MMX predicts a null result. > > That's a very simple application of the BaTh. > > Yes, but Ritz predicts null for both MMX and Sagnac. > If you introduce a new feature like a "photon gyro" > to produce a non-null result for Sagnac, it may also > produce a non-null prediction for the MMX. That's > why you can't just guess, you have to write out the > equations and work each of the experiments. If you > can't provide the equations, you don't have a theory, > just a speculation. > > George
From: george@briar.demon.co.uk on 14 Oct 2005 07:29 jgr...(a)seol.net.au wrote: > George Dishman wrote: > > "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message > > news:a4cok15ekbocc95d6ahg68foum9hm082hn(a)4ax.com... > > > On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 21:19:34 +0100, "George Dishman" > > > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > > > wrote: > > >> > > >>... 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. > > > > > > OK. Yes true. Not wrt the centre of the mirror. > > > > That should be your clue to the whistle question ;-) .... > Doppler (sound) is due to CHANGING distance between source and > receiver; if the distance is not changing, NEITHER is the frequency > observed by receiver > > > > > > CMIIW, but in the case of objects like the Earth and moon, moonlight would > > > be doppler shifted on the SURFACE of the Earth due to the EARTH'S rotation. > > The surface is not the center of the moon's orbit! An observer anywhere > but at the center of the whistle's orbit will hear a fluctuating note > too. Nice one Jim. Do you realise that you, Henri and I are now all in complete agreement? That has to be a first. :-) best regards George
From: Paul B. Andersen on 14 Oct 2005 08:34 Androcles wrote: > "Paul B. Andersen" wrote: > | Did you, or did you not prove your claim about the Moon > | to be true? > > I've never claimed it to be true, tusselad, I claim it to be valid. OK. So we can sum it up: When Androcles claimed: "If the Moon were a fluid it would break apart like droplets of mercury.", then he didn't claim his claim to be true. In the future I will remember that you are not claiming your claims to be true, Androcles. > Truth would involve evaporating the moon, or you jumping > out of a plane. We don't have to evaporate the Moon to know that the Moon would NOT break apart if it were fluid because, as I told you: | You would have to bring the Moon very close to | the Earth before anything like that would happen. | The critical distance is the Roche limit. | The Roche limit for a liquid Moon is 2.86 Earth radii. | The orbital radius is 21 times bigger than that. | A liquid Moon would do just fine. | And its shape would be the same. | (A sphere slightly distorted by the tidal forces.) That's why your statement revealed your ignorance of Roche limits and Roche lobes. I do however suspect that you now have realized that I am right. That's why you are trying to escape by claiming that you never claimed your claim to be true. Some escape, eh? :-) > | Androcles wrote: > | > However, your claim that Algol is a binary system is not compatible > | > with your claim the K2 is an accretion disk that occults > | > the light of the B8 and bounces off the surface of the B8. > | > | I think you better look up what I claimed, Androcles. > | You got it wrong - again! > > You have confused your poor but brilliant teacher, tusselad. > Would you please clear it up? With pleasure. From whence did you get the idiotic idea that I "claim the K2 is an accretion disk .."? Here is what I claimed. Read it again - if you can read. | But the two stars of Algol have different mass, radius and | density, and the B8 is well outside of the Roche limit | of the K2, while the K2 is just at the Roche limit of the B8. | That is, the K2 fills its Roche lobe completely, and mass | is transferred to the B8. So the K2 IS torn apart and there | is an accretion disk around the B8 akin to the rings of Saturn. | (This accretion disk is not stable, though. It is a transient | disk; the mass transferred from the K2 bounces off the surface | of the B8 and eventually falls back to the surface.) | | It doesn't happen in a minute, though. | The mass transfer is in the order of 10^-11 solar masses per year. | A star isn't a rigid body which suddenly can break apart. | The outer layers are very thin gas. | | When a star overflows its Roche lobe, it doesn't come apart. | The part of the star within the Roche lobe will be unaffected | even if the overflowing mass will fall onto the other star | and make an accretion disk around it. | Which is just what is happening. | | What did YOU imagine would happen, Androcles? To which you answered: | I've told what would happen. | One minute later and the model becomes this: | http://www.nineplanets.org/saturn.html Which reveals your ignorance of Roche limits and Roche lobes. Paul
From: Henri Wilson on 14 Oct 2005 17:09
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 22:41:22 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >news:a4cok15ekbocc95d6ahg68foum9hm082hn(a)4ax.com... >> On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 21:19:34 +0100, "George Dishman" >> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >> wrote: >> >>> >>>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >>>The latter, steady but with an offset proportional >>>to the speed of rotation. >> >> (Yes I thought that's what came up before. Just checking). >> >> So the total angle moved is calculated by continuously >> integrating that offset with time. > >Units typically have a direct rate output and an >integrator fed from that signal. When used for >fly-by-wire, it is only the rate that matters. >They can be used for navigation too but the >drift then is a limitation. > >> Once again that supports my 'photon-axis gyro' theory. > >Your 'photon-axis gyro theory' doesn't exist, >you haven't published the equations. One must start with a concept. >>>> 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. >> >> OK. Yes true. Not wrt the centre of the mirror. > >That should be your clue to the whistle question ;-) > >> CMIIW, but in the case of objects like the Earth and moon, moonlight would >> be >> doppler shifted on the SURFACE of the Earth due to the EARTH'S rotation. > >Yes, and also because of the distance from the >Earth's centre even if it wasn't rotating (think >of the view of the Moon from a mountain 200,000 >miles high), and also because the Moon's orbit >isn't perfectly circular. None of these are >'transverse Doppler' however, all just resolve >to the normal Doppler due to the radial component. > >>>>>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. >> >> As far as I can see, there is no radial velocity between any two >> components in >> ANY frame. > >Right, but there are a couple of complex points you >are missing even neglecting the complication of using >different frames for each leg. The origin of the >mirror frame is not inertial, it is moving in a >circle so you get an apparent centrifugal force >between the source and the mirror. That means you >also get "gravitational redshift" and Shapiro delay. you can believe that if you want to. I wont. >Also the speed of the light varies with the radius >because the frame is accelerating. There are lots >of tricky aspects to consider that come from using >an accelerating origin. The whole thing is very tricky....particularly when nobody has a real clue as to what a 'photon' actually is. >> So whether or not light speed is source dependent doesn't enter into the >> argument. > >It enters too. If you take all the above into account, >you will still get different answers if you compare a >model where the light is moving at c in the lab frame >or at c+kv where k depends on the number of mirrors. I maintain that each mirror is moving normally in the frame of the next. This means that source speed makes no difference to the fringe shifts. > >>>>>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. >> >> We know why the MMX predicts a null result. >> That's a very simple application of the BaTh. > >Yes, but Ritz predicts null for both MMX and Sagnac. Only in YOUR imagination. >If you introduce a new feature like a "photon gyro" >to produce a non-null result for Sagnac, it may also >produce a non-null prediction for the MMX. It doesn't. The MMX result is straight forward. If the MMX apparatus is rotated, it becomes a sagnac. >That's >why you can't just guess, you have to write out the >equations and work each of the experiments. If you >can't provide the equations, you don't have a theory, >just a speculation. One must begin with speculation. > >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". |