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: Paul B. Andersen on 21 Oct 2005 08:52 Androcles wrote: > "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote in message > | 3. The rotation of the star [..] will broaden the absorption > | lines slightly. That's how stellar rotation is measured. > > Can't agree with that. The only star you can measure rotation > of is the sun, the easiest way is observance of sun spots. http://www.astro.utoronto.ca/~rucinski/AMinstars1.pdf http://schwab.tsuniv.edu/papers/pasp/rotation/reprint.pdf http://www.star.ucl.ac.uk/~idh/HSG/IAU215.ps http://www.iac.es/galeria/ege/potasexp.ps http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1989Ap%26SS.161...61H&data_type=PDF_HIGH&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf Paul
From: George Dishman on 21 Oct 2005 10:26 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:h148l1972bdn5s7mebdb2095netb78ddn8(a)4ax.com... > 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. I know you have chosen not to understand SR, you said so a few weeks ago. That doesn't alter the fact that the explanation it provides for Sagnac is trivially simple. > 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? The geometry of spacetime. You might want to think of it as an extension of Pyhtagoras to 4D. > I think you are just a good old fashioned aetherist. I can't help the mistakes you make, you have said ignorance is your choice. >>>>> 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. See news:dfaarq$9ag$1(a)news.freedom2surf.net >>>>> 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. Fact Henri, but then you have chosen to remain ignorant of SR, or at least so you told me. >>> 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'm happy to discuss it since your diagram proved my point and showed Einstein was correct, but I don't want to waste time repeating what has already been said. >>>>> 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. Irrelevant, the result is known. That is what 'empirical' means. >>>>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. There is no 'kick' even in Sagnac. I showed you months ago that the light arrives at c so when it leaves at c, the speed is the same. Again, you are just rehashing old ground. >>> 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. I have already told you many times but that is irrelevant. The apparatus you describe would measure the speed. Sagnac measures the speed from a moving source in the lab and the result is c. >>> 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. Exactly, yet in Sagnac it moves at c relative to the lab inertial frame even though the source is moving in that frame, ergo Ritz is wrong. > 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. Correct. > SR says the same... with the proviso that every observer carries his own > 'personal aether frame' around with him. Wrong, if that were true, the light between your two mirrors 1 million LYs apart would need to move at some composite speed if viewed by two observers passing each other on the path between the mirrors and both influencing (e'g' dragging) the aether. Both would measure a speed other than c in such a composite-aether theory. In reality, the speed measured by each observer is c and SR explains that by the geometry of spacetime. It is the metric which is physical. > This is just a mathematical trick. Sorry Henri, as long as you choose to remain ignorant of how SR works, you'll never understand the physical basis. We went a long way to starting you off but you decided not to respond so I'll leave it at that. Nobody can force you to learn and I don't intend to waste my time trying. George
From: Henri Wilson on 21 Oct 2005 18:18 On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 13:04:44 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 15:03:46 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >> <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >> >> >> >> Have you considered that the K2 spectrum might be coming from a different layer >> of the B8 star. > >Definitely not. :-) >Henri, do you really not understand >how incredible idiotic this question is? It may sound idiotic to some idiotic people. >> >> The BaTh predicts willusions. >> >> Note: a "willusion" defines a subgroup of phenomena that are generally >> classified as "illusions". It applies specifically to observed images of very >> distant objects such as stars. These images and all data associated with them >> are distortions of reality due to the fact that information travels from the >> object to the observer at different speeds. Thus, the information reaching an >> observer at a particular instant is not generally that which left the star at >> ONE particular instant. > >You are babbling. >Please answer: >Does, or does not the BaT predict what >the observed light curve should be? It does. It must. > >If it does, does it then predict this light curve: >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. > >If it does not, what does it then predict? >Nothing? If it does not, it is simply because not all factirs have yet been considered (in my program anyway) > > >Don't let us forget what your now snipped claim was: >| That [the brigtness variation is less in IR than in visible] >| is expained by the fact that the visible is produced in the surface of the >| stars whereas the IR comes from lower levels where the radial velocities are >| smaller. >| Most of these brightness curves are the result of a star being orbited by a >| WCH, which might be a large planet like "Androcles". The stars wobble around >| the barycentre of the pair. The IR wobbles less than the visible. > >>>>The star is wobbling around the barycentre with its orbiting WCH. That centre >>>>probably lies within the star. If you draw this, you will see that various >>>>layers within the star have different radial velocities wrt a distant observer. >>>> >>>>The situation is further complicated by the star's rotation around its own >>>>axis. Different regions of each spherical shell will have different radial >>>>speeds. >>>> >>>>In the case of Algol, for instance, the radial velocitiy required to produce >>>>the willusion is indicative of the main star's rotation around the barycentre >>>>with its satellite planet, "Androcles". >>> >>>This is so obviously idiotic from a number of different reasons, >>>that I am not sure I will bother to point it out. >>>But OK, here are some of the reasons: >>>1. All the black body radiation comes from the photosphere, >>> and not from "different layers" of the star. >>>2. If a star is orbiting, but not rotating, every part >>> of the star will have exactly the same radial velocity >>> relative to a distant observer. The position of the barycentre >>> is of no consequence. >> >> >> That is decidedly wrong. Please admit to that in your next post. >> >> Every part has the same angular velocity. > >Which is zero if the star is not rotating. > >> Different layers within the star have different radial velocities...and that >> includes gaseous layers far beyond the extremities of the main body. > >This is caused by the rotation _only_. >The orbital motion has nothing to do with it. Run my little program: http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/radialvs.exe (select 'star rotation =1' for tidal lock) > >>>3. The rotation of the star will obviously mean that >>> different parts of the photosphere have different >>> radial velocity, which will not affect the BB radiation, >>> but which will broaden the absorption lines slightly. >>> That's how stellar rotation is measured. >> >> >> Correct. > >Of course. > >So according to you, a rotating star should >not emit a black body spectrum. >It does. Depends how hot it is and how fast it is rotating. > > >>>>>The BaT predicts no difference in the visible light >>>>>curve and the 10um light curve and thus is proven wrong. >>>> >>>> >>>>As usual, you are talking nonsense. >>>> >>>>You have completely overlooked the common situation in which the main star is >>>>wobbling around an internal barycentre. In that case, IR should have smaller >>>>radial speeds than visible. According to my model, that would usually cause >>>>smaller brightness variation in IR than visible. >>> >>>Utter nonsense. >>>The 10um radiation and the visible light radiation are >>>coming from the same source. >> >> >> Oh, have you been there? >> >> >>>To claim that these two parts of the spectrum are coming >> >>>from two different sources with different radial velocity >> >>>is so crazy that you must have lost your mind completely. >> >> >> No Paul, its not lost...just way ahead of you. >> >> >>>>>>>>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? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Who said that? >>>>> >>>>>Are you not paying attention, Henri? >>>>>I have shown you the calculation. >>>>> >>>>>Here it is again, all according to conventional theory: >>>>>We have two stars. >>>>>Algol A: temperature Ta = 12000K, radius Ra = 2.88 solar radii >>>>>Algol B: temperature Tb = 4880K, radius Rb = 3.54 solar radii >>>>> >>>>>Their relative brightness at the wavelength lambda will be: >>>>>Ba/Bb = (Ra/Rb)2* W(lambda,Ta)/W(lambda,Tb) >>>>> >>>>>where W(lambda,T) is Planck's radiation law. >>>>>Now we have: >>>>>(Ra/Rb)2 = 0.66 >>>>>W(lambda,Ta)/W(lambda,Tb) = >>>>> (exp(C/(lambda*Tb))-1)/(exp(C/(lambda*Ta))-1) >>>>>where C = 0.00144 m degree >>>>> >>>>>In the visible spectrum lambda = 0.5 um. >>>>>W(0,5um,Ta)/W(0,5um,Tb) = 40 >>>>> >>>>>So their relative visual brightness will be: >>>>>Ba/Bb = 26. >>>>>That is A is 26 times brigter than B. >>>>>The binary is 27 times brighter than B. >>>>> >>>>>If we assume that the eclipses are 100%, >>>>>we get the following brightnesses (B as unit): >>>>>No eclipse = 27 >>>>>B eclipses A: 1 (primary) >>>>>A eclipses B: 26 (secondary) >>>>> >>>>>The deepness of the minima in magnitudes will be: >>>>>Primary: 2.5*log(27) = 3.58 magnitudes >>>>>Secondary: 2.5*log(27/26) = 0.04 magnitudes. >>>>> >>>>>We see that the deepness of the primary minimum fits >>>>>quite well with what is observed. >>>>>But the secondary minimum is hardly observable at all >>>>>in the visible spectrum! >>>>> >>>>>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 >>>>>or: >>>>>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 I repeat my question: >>>>>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? >>>>> >>>>>You said it was easy to explain. >>>>> >>>>>So explain it. >>>> >>>> >>>>Well maybe it is not all that easy but I can offer a suggestion. >>>>Do you agree that IR would have its origin inside the star wheras visible is >>>>more likely to come from the very outer layers. >>> >>>No. >> >> >> Why not? >> >> >>>>If so, consider the comparative radial speeds of the IR and visible 'layers' >>>>wrt a distant observer FOR DIFFERENT POSITIONS OF THE BARYCENTRE. >>> >>>Mindless babble. >> >> >> Not everything you don't understand is mindless babble Paul. > >I know that this is mindless babble >because I understand it. run my little program: http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/radialvs.exe If you cannot see that the green dots have a higher radial velocities wrt the observer than the yellow ones then there is something wrong with you. > >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: Henri Wilson on 22 Oct 2005 05:38 On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 15:26:27 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >news:h148l1972bdn5s7mebdb2095netb78ddn8(a)4ax.com... >> Can you not see that you are quoting the aether explanation. You seem to >> think >> that space has absolute properties that determine light speed. > >I know you have chosen not to understand SR, you said >so a few weeks ago. That doesn't alter the fact that >the explanation it provides for Sagnac is trivially >simple. Of course it is simple. It has no physical basis. It is just circular maths. >> 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? > >The geometry of spacetime. You might want to think >of it as an extension of Pyhtagoras to 4D. George, physically speaking, there is NO spacetime. It is just a maths tool. > >> I think you are just a good old fashioned aetherist. > >I can't help the mistakes you make, you have said >ignorance is your choice. brainwashing is yours then.. >>>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. > >See news:dfaarq$9ag$1(a)news.freedom2surf.net can't get it. > >>>>>> 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. > >Fact Henri, but then you have chosen to remain ignorant >of SR, or at least so you told me. Try as I may, I cannot understand bullshit. I don't wish to be associated with any theory that is based on the obvious fallacy that a vertical light beam in one frame becomes a diagonal light beam in another. That is plain nonsense. >>>No speculation at all Henri, just the empirical result. >> >> ...and I say the result is due to factors unknown at this stage. > >Irrelevant, the result is known. That is what 'empirical' >means. If the result agrees with anything you want it to prove, it is for the wrong reasons. >> >> 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. > >There is no 'kick' even in Sagnac. I showed you months >ago that the light arrives at c so when it leaves at c, >the speed is the same. Again, you are just rehashing >old ground. I don't accept that. Too many assumptions are involved. It can never be directly verified. > >>>> 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. > >I have already told you many times but that is irrelevant. >The apparatus you describe would measure the speed. Sagnac >measures the speed from a moving source in the lab and the >result is c. No it doesn't . The speed of the source is normal to the next mirror's movement. >>>> 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. > >Exactly, yet in Sagnac it moves at c relative to the lab >inertial frame even though the source is moving in that >frame, ergo Ritz is wrong. So was Einstein then. Lorentz was correct. There is at least a 'local aether'. > >> 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. > >Correct. > >> SR says the same... with the proviso that every observer carries his own >> 'personal aether frame' around with him. > >Wrong, if that were true, the light between your two >mirrors 1 million LYs apart would need to move at some >composite speed if viewed by two observers passing >each other on the path between the mirrors and both >influencing (e'g' dragging) the aether. Both would >measure a speed other than c in such a composite-aether >theory. Yes..so SR breaks down in any physical situation.. >In reality, the speed measured by each observer >is c and SR explains that by the geometry of spacetime. >It is the metric which is physical. Never verified. > >> This is just a mathematical trick. > >Sorry Henri, as long as you choose to remain ignorant of >how SR works, you'll never understand the physical basis. >We went a long way to starting you off but you decided >not to respond so I'll leave it at that. Nobody can force >you to learn and I don't intend to waste my time trying. Geoge, expressing 3D space and time as a 4D graphic achieves nothing new. It might impress a lot of little kids but that's about all. > >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: George Dishman on 22 Oct 2005 06:36
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:d51kl1tj9vvemc5f4go35ej7e7coi91621(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 15:26:27 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: > >> >>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >>news:h148l1972bdn5s7mebdb2095netb78ddn8(a)4ax.com... > >>> Can you not see that you are quoting the aether explanation. You seem to >>> think >>> that space has absolute properties that determine light speed. >> >>I know you have chosen not to understand SR, you said >>so a few weeks ago. That doesn't alter the fact that >>the explanation it provides for Sagnac is trivially >>simple. > > Of course it is simple. It has no physical basis. It is just circular > maths. > >>> 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? >> >>The geometry of spacetime. You might want to think >>of it as an extension of Pyhtagoras to 4D. > > George, physically speaking, there is NO spacetime. There is a nice artists impression of a binary system on the LISA site home page: http://lisa.jpl.nasa.gov/ The middle link illustrates gravitational waves, ripples in spacetime: http://lisa.jpl.nasa.gov/popups/ripples.html Those ripples should carry off energy, a prediction confirmed by Hulse and Taylor. http://astrosun2.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses//astro201/psr1913.htm > It is just a maths tool. Maths tools don't change the orbits of stars, that takes something physical. The energy is transported as ripples in spacetime so spacetime must be physical. >>> I think you are just a good old fashioned aetherist. >> >>I can't help the mistakes you make, you have said >>ignorance is your choice. > > brainwashing is yours then.. No, I check for myself as far as I can. Most of SR is within my capabilities. >>>>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. >> >>See news:dfaarq$9ag$1(a)news.freedom2surf.net > > can't get it. If your server has retired the post, Google has it: http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.astro/msg/75f05646b8cd1bec There's a lot that is past history but you seemed to be making some relevant comments on the SR aspects near the bottom. Anyway, if you want to know how SR (and I) explains the invariance of the speed of light, that post will get you started. >>>>> SR uses LET geometry. >>>> >>>>Wrong again. The geometry of LET is 3d Euclidean, the >>>>geometry of SR is 4d Riemann with signature (+---). >>> >>> very funny. >> >>Fact Henri, but then you have chosen to remain ignorant >>of SR, or at least so you told me. > > Try as I may, I cannot understand bullshit. Strange, you produce it well enough ;-) Seriously though, it is a fact that LET and SR use completely different geometries. > I don't wish to be associated with any theory that is based on the obvious > fallacy that a vertical light beam in one frame becomes a diagonal light > beam > in another. > That is plain nonsense. Let me quote from your own program introduction: "One frame (rest) is equipped with a laser which sends pulses vertically. ... the path of each infinitesimal element of each photon is diagonal." The phrase "each infinitesimal element of each photon" is gibberish, a photon is a point particle, but what we are concerned with is the paths. In the rest frame the path is vertical while in the moving frame you say yourself that the path is diagonal. Just compare the red laser line with the purple path. You have a small error in your diagram, obviously the short section at the tip of each diagonal path needs to align with the path because, if you treat the photon as extended, then the part farthest from the laser was emitted earlier so will be laterally displaced from the end nearest the laser in the moving frame by the amount the frame moved during the time the element was emitted. >>> 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. >> >>There is no 'kick' even in Sagnac. I showed you months >>ago that the light arrives at c so when it leaves at c, >>the speed is the same. Again, you are just rehashing >>old ground. > > I don't accept that. Check for yourself then: http://www.briar.demon.co.uk/Henri/speed.gif > Too many assumptions are involved. It can never be directly verified. No assumptions, just what Ritz tells us, the speed of emission is c relative to the source. >>>>> 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. >> >>I have already told you many times but that is irrelevant. >>The apparatus you describe would measure the speed. Sagnac >>measures the speed from a moving source in the lab and the >>result is c. > > No it doesn't . > The speed of the source is normal to the next mirror's movement. Speed is distance divided by time. The distance is known from the dimensions of the experiment and the rate of rotation. The time difference is measured and when you do the sum you find the speed is c. >>> Ritz and the BaTh say that light moves at c wrt its source. >> >>Exactly, yet in Sagnac it moves at c relative to the lab >>inertial frame even though the source is moving in that >>frame, ergo Ritz is wrong. > > So was Einstein then. No, SR says the speed should be measured as being c in the lab frame and it is. > Lorentz was correct. Sort of, LET gives the right prediction but it does not say the light moves at c in the lab frame, it only moves at that speed in the aether frame. >>Wrong, if that were true, the light between your two >>mirrors 1 million LYs apart would need to move at some >>composite speed if viewed by two observers passing >>each other on the path between the mirrors and both >>influencing (e'g' dragging) the aether. Both would >>measure a speed other than c in such a composite-aether >>theory. > > Yes..so SR breaks down in any physical situation.. Nope, the measured speed is c, it is the dragged aether theories that break down. >>In reality, the speed measured by each observer >>is c and SR explains that by the geometry of spacetime. >>It is the metric which is physical. > > Never verified. Invariance of speed is verified by Sagnac, MMX, aberration, Fizeau, etc.. The physical nature of the metric was verified by Hulse and Taylor. >>> This is just a mathematical trick. >> >>Sorry Henri, as long as you choose to remain ignorant of >>how SR works, you'll never understand the physical basis. >>We went a long way to starting you off but you decided >>not to respond so I'll leave it at that. Nobody can force >>you to learn and I don't intend to waste my time trying. > > Geoge, expressing 3D space and time as a 4D graphic achieves nothing new. It brings our maths into line with what happens in reality. Clock ticks are measured to be equally spaced in 4D, not in 1D as Newton thought. George |