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 17 Oct 2005 17:27 On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 13:37:56 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >news:vth5l19e1f1v7s4pfq4c2bun0et9p4n6lc(a)4ax.com... >> On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 09:23:07 +0100, "George Dishman" >> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >> wrote: >>>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >>>news:bqv2l1lcficiap82dlub1bfn07nna0f0pf(a)4ax.com... ><snip side issues> >>>>>constant. That in turn means the time taken is >>>>>inversely proportional to the speed. Working >>>>>out the speed becomes complex in the mirror >>>>>frame. >>>> >>>> I thnk you have gotten that wrong. >>>> I think the speed remains c but the path length changes. >>> >>>I think you misunderstood me. The general result >>>is that in calculating the time taken, the speed >>>still matters if the distance is constant. I also >>>think that the speed of emission would remain >>>equal to c irrespective of the angular velocity >>>according to Ritz. However, the path length does >>>not change because "each mirror is moving normally >>>in the frame of the next". If there is no distance >>>change and Ritz predicts no speed change, then it >>>also predicts no change to the time taken, hence a >>>null output. >> >> George, I really think you should stop trying to work out the principle >> behind >> sagnac before it sends you crazy. > >The principle is trivially simple, the detector moves >while the light is in flight so the beam going against >the diriction of rotation takes less time that that >going with the rotation. It's only Ritz that has a >problem with that, not me :-) Can you not see that you are quoting the aether explanation. You seem to think that space has absolute properties that determine light speed. Imagine a completely remote sagnac interferometer with mirrors 1 million LYs apart. Are you suggesting that the speed of the beam is determined by something other than its relationship with its source? If so, what might that 'something' be? I think you are just a good old fashioned aetherist. > >> I am content to accept that it is not a test of source dependency. > >You are content to bury your head in the sand, yes >I know. I am not an aetherist like you. > >> The standard explanations are just those involving a 'local aether frame' >> and >> it is quite possible that such a frame DOES exist around Earth. > >Except that the speed of the Earth through the >aether would then enter into the analysis. Let's >leave that to others, I'm not interested in aether >theory probelms. Like all SRians, You ARE really an aetherist. >> The BaTh is mainly concerned with linear motion. Sagnac involves rotation >> and >> aspectsof light that I believe are quite unknown at this stage. > >BaT models like any physical theory must give a >valid prediction for Sagnac or they are falsified. How does YOUR theory fare with a remote apparatus having mirrors 1 million LYs apart? It become standard LET. > >>>>>>>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. >>>>> >>>>>You don't know that, you don't have any equations >>>>>for your "photon gyro" concept so you can't do the >>>>>calculation to find out. >>>> >>>> George, you SR 'explanation' is really just the LET explanation. >>> >>>No Henri it isn't even vaguely close. I tried to >>>explain some of the differences and you seemed to >>>be getting an inkling of how SR works but you >>>stopped replying to that thread. See message >>> news:dfaarq$9ag$1(a)news.freedom2surf.net >> >> I know hw SR 'explains' sagnac. > >Then why don't you answer the message. > >> It merely states the aether principle that light speed = c. > >Wrong, the aether principle says the speed >is c relative to the aether, not the lab. >You are still just demonstrating you don't >understand either Henri. So how do YOU explain why light speed travels at anything other than c wrt its source, in the case of the huge remote interferometer. You cannot without talking straight LET. > >>>> As always, SR reverts to LET when it tries to go physical instead of >>>> plain >>>> mathematical. >>> >>>You do that, SR uses geometry alone to derive the >>>LTs and is then mathematical. >> >> SR uses LET geometry. > >Wrong again. The geometry of LET is 3d Euclidean, the >geometry of SR is 4d Riemann with signature (+---). very funny. .....so you make a 4D 'plot' of 3D space and 1D time. Do you think that achieves some kind of magical transition from reality? It is simply a mathematical ploy. It does nothing physical. >> SR wrongly assumes that a vertical beam of light in one frame becomes a >> diagonal beam in another. > >I thought we discussed that some time ago? Your own >graphic showed the change in angle. Henri, I don't >want to waste time repeating all that, if you want >to discuss it again, can you find where we left off >and see if there was any remaining disagreement. It didn't show any change in angle. The beam remains vertical in the moving frame. .....and of course you don't want to discuss it. It clearly demonstrates how and why Einstein was wrong in the first chapter. > >>>> I doubt if Michelson watched while he rotated the apparatus ,...but if >>>> he >>>> had, it would have done what any sagnac would do. >>> >>>No, there would have been no shift or only a tiny >>>shift if they used multiple passes along the legs >>>to increase the effective distance, the reflection >>>points need to be slightly offset. >> >> Too much speculation George. > >No speculation at all Henri, just the empirical result. ....and I say the result is due to factors unknown at this stage. They will probably remain unknown for as long as physics remains in the grip of Einsteiniana/Lorentz. > >>>>>> If the MMX apparatus is rotated, it becomes a sagnac. >>>>> >>>>>That depends on the details but generally it >>>>>won't. The delay in Sagnac is propotional to the >>>>>area enclosed by the path but in MMX the light >>>>>usually returns back along the same path on each >>>>>leg so the ennclosed area is zero. >>>> >>>> Not when the MMX is rotating. A sagnac interferometer is just a >>>> Michelson >>>> one >>>> set up so that the fringe offset can be observed during rotation. >>> >>>For Sagnac the first leg is A->B->C->D->A >>> >>> A--->---B >>> | | >>> | v >>> ^ | >>> | | >>> D---<---C >>> >>>That encloses an area and the empirical result >>>is that the shift is proportional to the area. >>> >>>In MMX the first leg goes from A to B and back: >>> >>> A-<--->-B >>> | >>> | >>> | >>> | >>> D >>> >>>Neither leg encloses any area so empirically we >>>expect no shift when rotating. Your ideas on a >>>"photon gyro" would suggest to me that the act >>>of rotating should produce a shift even in MMX >>>but that is hand-waving. Until you produce the >>>equations, we can only guess ... as I said: >> >> Well, I'm not convinced that rotating the MMX is not equivalent. > >You should realise there is a fundamental difference >in the physical layout of the experiment which means >you cannot just assume the result of rotation, you >need the equations from your theory to get a >prediction. Well, for tyhe MMX, assumptions might have to be made about the reflection of normally incident light from a sideways moving mirror. In the sagnac, the mirrors are at 45, so the light gets a 'kick' at each reflection according to the BaTh. I still think they are equivalent....but I could be wrong. > >>>>>> One must begin with speculation. >>>>> >>>>>Sure, you have a speculation but not a theory. >>>> >>>> well forget the 'photon gyro' business. >>> >>>I think we have to until you can write down the >>>equations so we can both apply them. Degrees of >>>freedom for a photon are also intimately tied to >>>thermodynamic considerations and you would need >>>to do a pile of work to show your idea didn't >>>fail those experiments. It's not something we >>>can do here. >> >> I'm not going to speculate George. > >Agreed. > >>>It's also somewhat academic since part of the >>>design of iFOGs is to apply a modulation to >>>the light and it also exhibits the same time >>>delay. You might find a way to use a "photon >>>gyro" to explain the carrier shift but not the >>>modulation. >>> >>>> I think that the path length difference is not affected by source speed >>> >>>Indeed, the path length isn't affected, but the >>>time taken to traverse that path depends on the >>>emission speed. I think that's obvious. Constant >>>speed means constant time taken, but the >>>experiment shows variable time hence Ritz is >>>wrong. >> >> No I don't believe sagnac is a test of Ritz. > >Tough luck, it involves the speed of light emitted >from a moving source which is how Ritz differs from >other theories. So what determines the speed of the beam in the large apparatus mention above? You cannot answer that can you. >> It involves rotation and all the >> complications that go with that.. >> Ritz requires straight lines. > >No, Ritz is supposed to be a scientific theory >for light propagation which means I can apply >it to any situation I like. Those are the rules. Ritz and the BaTh say that light moves at c wrt its source. LET accepts that light can move at c+v wrt an observer BUT that the observer will always MEASURE the speed of that light as 'c' because his meassuring equipment will physically change tom make that happen. SR says the same... with the proviso that every observer carries his own 'personal aether frame' around with him. This is just a mathematical trick. > >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: Henri Wilson on 17 Oct 2005 19:43 On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 16:03:51 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 22:39:11 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >> <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >> >> >>>Henri Wilson wrote: >>> >>>>On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 16:53:23 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >>>><paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >>>> >> >> >>>>>A Doppler shifted K2 spectrum is still a K2 spectrum, >>>>>and cannot be mistaken for anything else than the spectrum >>>>>emitted from a star with temperature ca. 3800K. >>>>> >>>>>I have told you before, do you never learn? >>>>>The temperature of a star is NOT determined by where >>>>>the black body spectrum peaks. >>>>>The spectral class is determined by the relative positions >>>>>and intensities of the absorption lines, and these are >>>>>unaffected by a Doppler shift. >>>> >>>> >>>>I don't think that is quite what you wanted to say. >>> >>>Yes, that is exactly what I wanted to say. >>>Each spectral class has a very characteristic pattern >>>of absorption lines, and this pattern isn't affected >>>by a Doppler shift. Their relative position and intensity >>>remain the same. >> >> >> According to the standard interpretation of the willusion. > >This is a FACT. >This IS how the spectral class of a star is determined. sounds pretty shonky to me. > >>>>>The temperature is then determined by the spectral class. >>>> >>>> >>>>I think what you meant was that if absorption lines were distinguishable and >>>>recognizeable, their doppler shift would be an indication of the star's radial >> I think the doppler corrected peak of the curve would be a better indicator of >> temperature. > >Of course it is the best indicator of temperature. >(You also have to correct for the reddening of the black body > spectrum in the atmosphere, though). >And this IS how the the temperature originally was determined. >A lot of close stars were observed, the spectrum AND the temperature >(determined by the peak) was measured. >We have learned from these observations that the correlation between >the spectral class and temperature is one. This is quite natural, >because it is the temperature that determines the absorption lines. >In cool M stars, there are molecules and non ionized gases, with >their characteristic spectral lines. In hot O stars, there are >no molecules, and all the gas is ionized. This give few spectral lines. > >So we can conclude that the spectral class is a very good >indication of the temperature I doubt it. > >It is generally much easier to determine the spectral class >of a star, than it is to determine where the spectrum peaks. >And the difference is more pronounced the fainter the star is. > >I will not insist that determining the spectral class by >recognizing the pattern of the absorption lines is >the only used way to determine a star's temperature, though. >The most used way is probably to measure the colour index, >also called B-V value. This is found by measuring the apparent >magnitude with a blue passband filter (B), and comparing this >to the apparent magnitude with a passband filter in the middle >of the visual range (green-yellow) (V). > >The reason why this method is much used is that it is >easy to do. Just take two pictures with two filters. > >I assume you will understand why this is a good indication >of temperature. It is nicely explained here: >http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys445/lectures/colors/colors.html That's bullshit. black body curves don't cross each other. > >This method doesn't take the Doppler shift into consideration, though. >But few stars are so heavily Doppler shifted that it will affect >the measurements much. > >There are other methods as well. >Most are variations of the colour index method. All highly suspect. > >But determining the position of the peak is very seldom >used, simply because it is practically difficult to do >with any precision. It should be quite OK for hot stars. >>>Thus you were wrong when insinuating that a spectral class >>>can appear different because of Doppler >> >> >> I think you are refering to chemical classifications rather than plain >> temperature. > >No. >A - say - G2 star can have different chemical compositions >and still be a G2 star. Sure the spectra of a population I >(metal rich) and a population II (metal poor) star are different, >that's how we can discriminate between them. >But the differences are small compared to what they have in common, >so if they have the same temperature, the spectral class will >still be the same. > >You cannot flee from the fact that you were wrong >when insinuating that a spectral class >can appear different because of Doppler Well I think the whole process is very suspect and even theoretically unsound. >>>Really? >>>You claim the that only the B8 star exiats, and that >>>the K2 star really is a planet. >> >> >> I said that I accepted the presence of another object. >> I didn't say what it might be. > >Fleeing again? >Henri Wilson wrote: >| A, I have supported you on this. In Algol's case, the WCH happens >| to be the >| large planet 'Androcles'. Do you have any objections to that? > >I had an objection to that. >That's why we are having this conversation. I said there might be another smaller star present. > >>>So would you please explain what you meant by this comment? >>> >>>Of course you cannot. >> >> >> All you have is willusory information. > >Like I said. >You cannot. > >It is of course ridiculous to claim that the observed K2 >spectrum is a B8 spectrum reflected off a planet. Strange things can happen You canot judge the whole universe by what we see in OUR solar system. >> >> This is what it really looks like: >> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/alg2.jpg > >Thanks for confirming my words. >You cannot show the light curve which is "distinctly >downwardly concave between the two major dips", >because it only exists in your imagination. Hey tusselad, the one I gave here showed how the inclusion of molecular source speeds could make curve fitting rather difficult. Concave could be 'drawn' convex. Have a look at http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/pa1.jpg for typical BaTh prediction for stars in highly eccentric orbits. The curve on the right is interesting. A second dip can be produced if a small second star is present in the primary orbit but following 180 degrees behind the main star. The lower curves show the type of spread produced when source speeds averaging 1000m/s are included. > >>>>>So don't we see the secondary minimum, then? >>>>> >>>>>Let us calculate what the deepness of the minima would >>>>>be in the infra-red, lambda = 10um. >>>>>We use the same method as above: >>>>> >>>>>Ba/Bb = (Ra/Rb)^2* W(10um,Ta)/W(10m,Tb) = 1.8 >>>>> >>>>>No eclipse = 2.8 >>>>>B eclipses A: 1 (primary) >>>>>A eclipses B: 1.8 (secondary) >>>>> >>>>>The deepness of the minima in magnitudes will be: >>>>>Primary: 2.5*log(2.8) = 1.12 magnitudes >>>>>Secondary: 2.5*log(2.8/1.8) = 0.48 magnitudes. >>>>> >>>>>Observation of the secondary minimum at 10um can be found in; >>>>> >>>>>http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1978MNRAS.184..523N&data_type=PDF_HIGH&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf >>>>> >>>>>If this long query doesn't make it through, try this one: >>>>>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1978MNRAS.184..523N& >>>>>And retrieve the full article. >>>>> >>>>>The observed deepness of the secondary minimum is ca. 0.35. >>>>>A little less deep than what I calculated it should be. >>>>>However, since B is larger than A, the eclipse will not be 100%, >>>>>and the minimum _should_ be less deep. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>So we can conclude that the observed eclipses are as expected. >>>> >>>> >>>>No. >>>>We can only conclude that your whole argument above involves circular >>>>reasoning. >>>> >>>>The parameters of the 'two stars' are largely based on your so called 'eclipse >>>>depth'. >>>> >>>>You - and they - have used the parameters of the illusion to justify the >>>>illusion. >>> >>>You pretend not to to get the point, do you? >>>The conventional explanation predicts that the light curve >>>should be different at different wavelengths. >>>The second minimum is observed in the infra-red at 10 um. >>>It is exactly as it should be according to the conventional explanation. >> >> >> The conventional explanation is based on what is observed in the willusion. > >You do understand how stupid this answer is, don't you? >Look at the light curve in this again: >http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1978MNRAS.184..523N&data_type=PDF_HIGH&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf >or >http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1978MNRAS.184..523N& >And retrieve the full article. > >Can you please explain in what way this light curve is illusory? It is willusory by definition. Because light is used for gaining information about the star, it is a willusion. The task is to find te truth that causes the willusion. > >>>The ballistic theory does NOT predict such a difference. >>> >>>The ballistic theory is thus falsified. >>>Again. >> >> >> The ballistic theory WILL always predict what is observed. > >Isn't it rather stupid to keep asserting what is proven false? Paul, I will have to remind you again that the christian belief about the Earth being the centre of the universe is not true. All starlight DOES NOT travel towards little planet Earth at precisely c. Why should it? If you think it does, then please tell us why. >> However it involves a great deal of trial and error as well as some initial >> speculation about what might be really happening. It also provides opportunity >> for discovery. >> >> I don't think we can model the rest of the universe on our own solar system. > >You are babbling. >You know very well that the ballistic theory does not predict >a frequency dependent light curve. >But the light curve of Algol IS frequency dependent >exactly as predicted by conventional theory. I don't understand what you mean by 'frequency' here. If you mean light frequency, then that is easy to explain. > >The ballistic theory is falsified. >Again. ...and all starlight just happens to magically travel to little planet Earth at c. > >Paul 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: jgreen on 18 Oct 2005 01:39 Henri Wilson wrote: > On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 13:37:56 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: > > > > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message > >news:vth5l19e1f1v7s4pfq4c2bun0et9p4n6lc(a)4ax.com... > >> On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 09:23:07 +0100, "George Dishman" > >> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > >> wrote: > >>>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message > >>>news:bqv2l1lcficiap82dlub1bfn07nna0f0pf(a)4ax.com... > ><snip side issues> > >>>>>constant. That in turn means the time taken is > >>>>>inversely proportional to the speed. Working > >>>>>out the speed becomes complex in the mirror > >>>>>frame. > >>>> > >>>> I thnk you have gotten that wrong. > >>>> I think the speed remains c but the path length changes. > >>> > >>>I think you misunderstood me. The general result > >>>is that in calculating the time taken, the speed > >>>still matters if the distance is constant. I also > >>>think that the speed of emission would remain > >>>equal to c irrespective of the angular velocity > >>>according to Ritz. However, the path length does > >>>not change because "each mirror is moving normally > >>>in the frame of the next". If there is no distance > >>>change and Ritz predicts no speed change, then it > >>>also predicts no change to the time taken, hence a > >>>null output. > >> > >> George, I really think you should stop trying to work out the principle > >> behind > >> sagnac before it sends you crazy. > > > >The principle is trivially simple, the detector moves > >while the light is in flight so the beam going against > >the diriction of rotation takes less time that that > >going with the rotation. It's only Ritz that has a > >problem with that, not me :-) > > Can you not see that you are quoting the aether explanation. You seem to think > that space has absolute properties that determine light speed. > > Imagine a completely remote sagnac interferometer with mirrors 1 million LYs > apart. Are you suggesting that the speed of the beam is determined by something > other than its relationship with its source? If so, what might that 'something' > be? > > I think you are just a good old fashioned aetherist. > > > > > >> I am content to accept that it is not a test of source dependency. > > > >You are content to bury your head in the sand, yes > >I know. > > I am not an aetherist like you. > > > > >> The standard explanations are just those involving a 'local aether frame' > >> and > >> it is quite possible that such a frame DOES exist around Earth. > > > >Except that the speed of the Earth through the > >aether would then enter into the analysis. Let's > >leave that to others, I'm not interested in aether > >theory probelms. > > Like all SRians, You ARE really an aetherist. > > >> The BaTh is mainly concerned with linear motion. Sagnac involves rotation > >> and > >> aspectsof light that I believe are quite unknown at this stage. > > > >BaT models like any physical theory must give a > >valid prediction for Sagnac or they are falsified. > > How does YOUR theory fare with a remote apparatus having mirrors 1 million LYs > apart? > It become standard LET. > > > > >>>>>>>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. > >>>>> > >>>>>You don't know that, you don't have any equations > >>>>>for your "photon gyro" concept so you can't do the > >>>>>calculation to find out. > >>>> > >>>> George, you SR 'explanation' is really just the LET explanation. > >>> > >>>No Henri it isn't even vaguely close. I tried to > >>>explain some of the differences and you seemed to > >>>be getting an inkling of how SR works but you > >>>stopped replying to that thread. See message > >>> news:dfaarq$9ag$1(a)news.freedom2surf.net > >> > >> I know hw SR 'explains' sagnac. > > > >Then why don't you answer the message. > > > >> It merely states the aether principle that light speed = c. > > > >Wrong, the aether principle says the speed > >is c relative to the aether, not the lab. > >You are still just demonstrating you don't > >understand either Henri. > > So how do YOU explain why light speed travels at anything other than c wrt its > source, in the case of the huge remote interferometer. > > You cannot without talking straight LET. > > > > >>>> As always, SR reverts to LET when it tries to go physical instead of > >>>> plain > >>>> mathematical. > >>> > >>>You do that, SR uses geometry alone to derive the > >>>LTs and is then mathematical. > >> > >> SR uses LET geometry. > > > >Wrong again. The geometry of LET is 3d Euclidean, the > >geometry of SR is 4d Riemann with signature (+---). > > very funny. > ....so you make a 4D 'plot' of 3D space and 1D time. > > Do you think that achieves some kind of magical transition from reality? > It is simply a mathematical ploy. It does nothing physical. > > >> SR wrongly assumes that a vertical beam of light in one frame becomes a > >> diagonal beam in another. > > > >I thought we discussed that some time ago? Your own > >graphic showed the change in angle. Henri, I don't > >want to waste time repeating all that, if you want > >to discuss it again, can you find where we left off > >and see if there was any remaining disagreement. > > It didn't show any change in angle. The beam remains vertical in the moving > frame. > ....and of course you don't want to discuss it. It clearly demonstrates how and > why Einstein was wrong in the first chapter. > > > > >>>> I doubt if Michelson watched while he rotated the apparatus ,...but if > >>>> he > >>>> had, it would have done what any sagnac would do. > >>> > >>>No, there would have been no shift or only a tiny > >>>shift if they used multiple passes along the legs > >>>to increase the effective distance, the reflection > >>>points need to be slightly offset. > >> > >> Too much speculation George. > > > >No speculation at all Henri, just the empirical result. > > ...and I say the result is due to factors unknown at this stage. > They will probably remain unknown for as long as physics remains in the grip of > Einsteiniana/Lorentz. > > > > >>>>>> If the MMX apparatus is rotated, it becomes a sagnac. > >>>>> > >>>>>That depends on the details but generally it > >>>>>won't. The delay in Sagnac is propotional to the > >>>>>area enclosed by the path but in MMX the light > >>>>>usually returns back along the same path on each > >>>>>leg so the ennclosed area is zero. > >>>> > >>>> Not when the MMX is rotating. A sagnac interferometer is just a > >>>> Michelson > >>>> one > >>>> set up so that the fringe offset can be observed during rotation. > >>> > >>>For Sagnac the first leg is A->B->C->D->A > >>> > >>> A--->---B > >>> | | > >>> | v > >>> ^ | > >>> | | > >>> D---<---C > >>> > >>>That encloses an area and the empirical result > >>>is that the shift is proportional to the area. > >>> > >>>In MMX the first leg goes from A to B and back: > >>> > >>> A-<--->-B > >>> | > >>> | > >>> | > >>> | > >>> D > >>> > >>>Neither leg encloses any area so empirically we > >>>expect no shift when rotating. Your ideas on a > >>>"photon gyro" would suggest to me that the act > >>>of rotating should produce a shift even in MMX > >>>but that is hand-waving. Until you produce the > >>>equations, we can only guess ... as I said: > >> > >> Well, I'm not convinced that rotating the MMX is not equivalent. > > > >You should realise there is a fundamental difference > >in the physical layout of the experiment which means > >you cannot just assume the result of rotation, you > >need the equations from your theory to get a > >prediction. > > Well, for tyhe MMX, assumptions might have to be made about the reflection of > normally incident light from a sideways moving mirror. In the sagnac, the > mirrors are at 45, so the light gets a 'kick' at each reflection according to > the BaTh. > I still think they are equivalent....but I could be wrong. > > > > >>>>>> One must begin with speculation. > >>>>> > >>>>>Sure, you have a speculation but not a theory. > >>>> > >>>> well forget the 'photon gyro' business. > >>> > >>>I think we have to until you can write down the > >>>equations so we can both apply them. Degrees of > >>>freedom for a photon are also intimately tied to > >>>thermodynamic considerations and you would need > >>>to do a pile of work to show your idea didn't > >>>fail those experiments. It's not something we > >>>can do here. > >> > >> I'm not going to speculate George. > > > >Agreed. > > > >>>It's also somewhat academic since part of the > >>>design of iFOGs is to apply a modulation to > >>>the light and it also exhibits the same time > >>>delay. You might find a way to use a "photon > >>>gyro" to explain the carrier shift but not the > >>>modulation. > >>> > >>>> I think that the path length difference is not affected by source speed > >>> > >>>Indeed, the path length isn't affected, but the > >>>time taken to traverse that path depends on the > >>>emission speed. I think that's obvious. Constant > >>>speed means constant time taken, but the > >>>experiment shows variable time hence Ritz is > >>>wrong. > >> > >> No I don't believe sagnac is a test of Ritz. > > > >Tough luck, it involves the speed of light emitted > >from a moving source which is how Ritz differs from > >other theories. > > So what determines the speed of the beam in the large apparatus mention above? > You cannot answer that can you. > > >> It involves rotation and all the > >> complications that go with that.. > >> Ritz requires straight lines. > > > >No, Ritz is supposed to be a scientific theory > >for light propagation which means I can apply > >it to any situation I like. Those are the rules. > > Ritz and the BaTh say that light moves at c wrt its source. > > LET accepts that light can move at c+v wrt an observer BUT that the observer > will always MEASURE the speed of that light as 'c' because his meassuring > equipment will physically change tom make that happen. > > SR says the same... with the proviso that every observer carries his own > 'personal aether frame' around with him. > This is just a mathematical trick. When questioned privately whether a 10m coil tape would physically change between ground zero, and high speed (uncoiled on the rocket), George says no! DHR's just can't seem to comprehend that observers MAKE MISTAKES; that what you see, isn't necessarily what IS Jim G c'=c+v > > > > > >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: Paul B. Andersen on 18 Oct 2005 07:22 Henri Wilson wrote: > On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 16:03:51 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" > <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: > > >>Henri Wilson wrote: >> >>>On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 22:39:11 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >>><paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>Henri Wilson wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 16:53:23 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >>>>><paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >>>>> >>> >>> >>>>>>A Doppler shifted K2 spectrum is still a K2 spectrum, >>>>>>and cannot be mistaken for anything else than the spectrum >>>>>>emitted from a star with temperature ca. 3800K. >>>>>> >>>>>>I have told you before, do you never learn? >>>>>>The temperature of a star is NOT determined by where >>>>>>the black body spectrum peaks. >>>>>>The spectral class is determined by the relative positions >>>>>>and intensities of the absorption lines, and these are >>>>>>unaffected by a Doppler shift. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I don't think that is quite what you wanted to say. >>>> >>>>Yes, that is exactly what I wanted to say. >>>>Each spectral class has a very characteristic pattern >>>>of absorption lines, and this pattern isn't affected >>>>by a Doppler shift. Their relative position and intensity >>>>remain the same. >>> >>> >>>According to the standard interpretation of the willusion. >> >>This is a FACT. >>This IS how the spectral class of a star is determined. > > > sounds pretty shonky to me. > > >>>>>>The temperature is then determined by the spectral class. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I think what you meant was that if absorption lines were distinguishable and >>>>>recognizeable, their doppler shift would be an indication of the star's radial > > >>>I think the doppler corrected peak of the curve would be a better indicator of >>>temperature. >> >>Of course it is the best indicator of temperature. >>(You also have to correct for the reddening of the black body >> spectrum in the atmosphere, though). >>And this IS how the the temperature originally was determined. >>A lot of close stars were observed, the spectrum AND the temperature >>(determined by the peak) was measured. >>We have learned from these observations that the correlation between >>the spectral class and temperature is one. This is quite natural, >>because it is the temperature that determines the absorption lines. >>In cool M stars, there are molecules and non ionized gases, with >>their characteristic spectral lines. In hot O stars, there are >>no molecules, and all the gas is ionized. This give few spectral lines. >> >>So we can conclude that the spectral class is a very good >>indication of the temperature > > > I doubt it. Facts are facts even if you doubt them. >>It is generally much easier to determine the spectral class >>of a star, than it is to determine where the spectrum peaks. >>And the difference is more pronounced the fainter the star is. >> >>I will not insist that determining the spectral class by >>recognizing the pattern of the absorption lines is >>the only used way to determine a star's temperature, though. >>The most used way is probably to measure the colour index, >>also called B-V value. This is found by measuring the apparent >>magnitude with a blue passband filter (B), and comparing this >>to the apparent magnitude with a passband filter in the middle >>of the visual range (green-yellow) (V). >> >>The reason why this method is much used is that it is >>easy to do. Just take two pictures with two filters. >> >>I assume you will understand why this is a good indication >>of temperature. It is nicely explained here: >>http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys445/lectures/colors/colors.html > > > That's bullshit. OK. I overestimated you. You do not understand why the (V-B) value is a good indication of the stellar temperature even when it is explained to you. > black body curves don't cross each other. Nobody said they do. > > >>This method doesn't take the Doppler shift into consideration, though. >>But few stars are so heavily Doppler shifted that it will affect >>the measurements much. >> >>There are other methods as well. >>Most are variations of the colour index method. > > > All highly suspect. > > >>But determining the position of the peak is very seldom >>used, simply because it is practically difficult to do >>with any precision. > > > It should be quite OK for hot stars. > > >>>>Thus you were wrong when insinuating that a spectral class >>>>can appear different because of Doppler >>> >>> >>>I think you are refering to chemical classifications rather than plain >>>temperature. >> >>No. >>A - say - G2 star can have different chemical compositions >>and still be a G2 star. Sure the spectra of a population I >>(metal rich) and a population II (metal poor) star are different, >>that's how we can discriminate between them. >>But the differences are small compared to what they have in common, >>so if they have the same temperature, the spectral class will >>still be the same. >> >>You cannot flee from the fact that you were wrong >>when insinuating that a spectral class >>can appear different because of Doppler > > > Well I think the whole process is very suspect and even theoretically unsound. Your opinion of the "process" does not change the fact that you were wrong when insinuating that a spectral class can appear different because of Doppler >>>>Really? >>>>You claim the that only the B8 star exiats, and that >>>>the K2 star really is a planet. >>> >>> >>>I said that I accepted the presence of another object. >>>I didn't say what it might be. >> >>Fleeing again? >>Henri Wilson wrote: >>| A, I have supported you on this. In Algol's case, the WCH happens >>| to be the >>| large planet 'Androcles'. Do you have any objections to that? >> >>I had an objection to that. >>That's why we are having this conversation. > > > I said there might be another smaller star present. > > >>>>So would you please explain what you meant by this comment? >>>> >>>>Of course you cannot. >>> >>> >>>All you have is willusory information. >> >>Like I said. >>You cannot. >> >>It is of course ridiculous to claim that the observed K2 >>spectrum is a B8 spectrum reflected off a planet. > > > Strange things can happen > You canot judge the whole universe by what we see in OUR solar system. Strange things can happen, but a planet will never reflect a K2 spectrum when it is illuminated by a B8 star. >>>This is what it really looks like: >>>www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/alg2.jpg >> >>Thanks for confirming my words. >>You cannot show the light curve which is "distinctly >>downwardly concave between the two major dips", >>because it only exists in your imagination. > > > Hey tusselad, the one I gave here showed how the inclusion of molecular source > speeds could make curve fitting rather difficult. Concave could be 'drawn' > convex. > > Have a look at http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/pa1.jpg > for typical BaTh prediction for stars in highly eccentric orbits. > > The curve on the right is interesting. > A second dip can be produced if a small second star is present in the primary > orbit but following 180 degrees behind the main star. > The lower curves show the type of spread produced when source speeds averaging > 1000m/s are included. The fact remains: You claimed that the light curve of Algol is "distinctly downwardly concave between the two major dips", but you cannot show the light curve which is "distinctly downwardly concave between the two major dips", because it only exists in your imagination. >>>>>>So don't we see the secondary minimum, then? >>>>>> >>>>>>Let us calculate what the deepness of the minima would >>>>>>be in the infra-red, lambda = 10um. >>>>>>We use the same method as above: >>>>>> >>>>>>Ba/Bb = (Ra/Rb)^2* W(10um,Ta)/W(10m,Tb) = 1.8 >>>>>> >>>>>>No eclipse = 2.8 >>>>>>B eclipses A: 1 (primary) >>>>>>A eclipses B: 1.8 (secondary) >>>>>> >>>>>>The deepness of the minima in magnitudes will be: >>>>>>Primary: 2.5*log(2.8) = 1.12 magnitudes >>>>>>Secondary: 2.5*log(2.8/1.8) = 0.48 magnitudes. >>>>>> >>>>>>Observation of the secondary minimum at 10um can be found in; >>>>>> >>>>>>http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1978MNRAS.184..523N&data_type=PDF_HIGH&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf >>>>>> >>>>>>If this long query doesn't make it through, try this one: >>>>>>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1978MNRAS.184..523N& >>>>>>And retrieve the full article. >>>>>> >>>>>>The observed deepness of the secondary minimum is ca. 0.35. >>>>>>A little less deep than what I calculated it should be. >>>>>>However, since B is larger than A, the eclipse will not be 100%, >>>>>>and the minimum _should_ be less deep. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>So we can conclude that the observed eclipses are as expected. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>No. >>>>>We can only conclude that your whole argument above involves circular >>>>>reasoning. >>>>> >>>>>The parameters of the 'two stars' are largely based on your so called 'eclipse >>>>>depth'. >>>>> >>>>>You - and they - have used the parameters of the illusion to justify the >>>>>illusion. >>>> >>>>You pretend not to to get the point, do you? >>>>The conventional explanation predicts that the light curve >>>>should be different at different wavelengths. >>>>The second minimum is observed in the infra-red at 10 um. >>>>It is exactly as it should be according to the conventional explanation. >>> >>> >>>The conventional explanation is based on what is observed in the willusion. >> >>You do understand how stupid this answer is, don't you? >>Look at the light curve in this again: >>http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1978MNRAS.184..523N&data_type=PDF_HIGH&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf >>or >>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1978MNRAS.184..523N& >>And retrieve the full article. >> >>Can you please explain in what way this light curve is illusory? > > > It is willusory by definition. > Because light is used for gaining information about the star, it is a > willusion. > The task is to find te truth that causes the willusion. If light curves are illusory by definition, why are you then so eager to make your program produce those illusions? You know you are babbling nonsense now, of course. >>>>The ballistic theory does NOT predict such a difference. >>>> >>>>The ballistic theory is thus falsified. >>>>Again. >>> >>> >>>The ballistic theory WILL always predict what is observed. >> >>Isn't it rather stupid to keep asserting what is proven false? > > > Paul, I will have to remind you again that the christian belief about the Earth > being the centre of the universe is not true. > All starlight DOES NOT travel towards little planet Earth at precisely c. Why > should it? > > If you think it does, then please tell us why. And the reason why you "will have to remind" me about an irrelevant triviality is that you are desperate to divert the attention from the fact that the BaT predicts no difference in the visible light curve and the 10um light curve and thus is proven wrong. >>>However it involves a great deal of trial and error as well as some initial >>>speculation about what might be really happening. It also provides opportunity >>>for discovery. >>> >>>I don't think we can model the rest of the universe on our own solar system. >> >>You are babbling. >>You know very well that the ballistic theory does not predict >>a frequency dependent light curve. >>But the light curve of Algol IS frequency dependent >>exactly as predicted by conventional theory. > > > I don't understand what you mean by 'frequency' here. > If you mean light frequency, then that is easy to explain. So explain it. Why is the secondary minimum practically unobservable in visible light, while it is 0.35 magnitudes deep at 10um, exactly as the conventional theory predicts they should be? Paul Paul
From: "Androcles" <Androcles@ on 18 Oct 2005 08:56
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote in message news:dj2ltk$drm$1(a)dolly.uninett.no... | >>It is of course ridiculous to claim that the observed K2 | >>spectrum is a B8 spectrum reflected off a planet. It is of course ridiculous to claim a K2 accretion disk can eclipse a B8 star as it bounces off the surface, as ony a tusselad would. Produce the K2 spectrum of Algol, let's see what is really observed. Androcles. |