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: bz on 30 Oct 2005 07:15 HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:1j58m1pahavu0kcjiquh9gutl9o33kn9m5(a)4ax.com: > On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 01:04:28 +0000 (UTC), bz > <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > >>HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>news:l745m1da6q7kfgjvm13oa1hfiu47h01f0u(a)4ax.com: >> > >>>>I showed that in a BaT universe, there is no reason to suppose that >>>>there is any limit on velocity. Yet you and I both accept the fact >>>>that it is impossible to accelerate a mass to a velocity greater than >>>>c. But in a BaT universe, there should NOT be any such limit, so what >>>>is going on? >>> >>> There isn't any limit. It is just too damn hard to achieve. >> >>Not hard in a BaT universe. Collide Two beams of protons, each going .6 >>c and you would have them colliding at a relative velocity of 1.2 c. >> >>In an Einsteinian universe, they only collide at 0.882 c. > > No. You MUST use Einstein's 'composition of velocities' formula to calculate the velocity of one as seen from the other in an Einsteinian universe. > Their closing speed is still 1.2c. Correct, but closing speed is NOT the speed they see, it is the speed as seen by an observer that is NOT involved in their motion. >>Strangely enough, that is just about what they act like in our universe >>too. > > Who said that? Experimenters at various labs that have been colliding particles for decades. Google is your friend. >>> Atmospheric Muons do it because they are produced in elastic >>> collisions with heavy particles traveling at high speed, possibly >c >>> wrt Earth. >> >>Strange that no one has discovered any traveling faster than c. > > they discover them regularly. Who said? Reference? I can't find any. Google is your enemy. >>>>> In a vacuum, light can impinge on an observer at a whole range of >>>>> speeds - and that is what happens. >>>> >>>>In a BaT universe, that is what would be true. In an Einsteinian >>>>universe light can only impinge on any observer at c. >>> >>> Who cares. >> >>You appear to care a lot. >> >>>>You have not been able to disprove the theory that all light impinges >>>>on any observer at c. >>> >>> It has never been disproved either. >> >>That is what I said. >> >>You have NOT been able to DISprove the theory that all light impinges on >>any observer at c. > > Typo > It has never been proved either. A statement like that shows a lack of a scientific outlook. It never will be proven. Science can NEVER prove anything. That is why I said it has never been disproven. On the otherhand, much evidence exists that invalidates and disproves BaT. >>>>> It also so happens that not many objects in the whole universe are >>>>> moving at anywhere near c wrt any other objects. >>>>> There have been recordings of doppler shift indicating gas bodies >>>>> moving at >c wrt Earth but the relativists concocted excuses for >>>>> these. >>>> >>>>Henri, if something were actually moving away from earth at speeds > >>>>c, the doppler shift would make the frequency negative. On the other >>>>hand, calculating CLOSING (opening) speeds for distant objects can >>>>easily indicate speeds greater than c. >>> >>> What the hell are you talking about? >>> ...negative frequency????? >> >>Calculate the doppler shift of light from something going away at c. You >>end up with a frequency of zero. (actually, you end up dividing by zero >>and that is undefined, but the LIMIT approaches zero) >> >>Now, calculate the frequency from a source going away faster than c. The >>frequency would be negative or imaginary. > > Its light would not reach you. > You wouldn't register any doppler shift. Correct, for an Einsteinian universe. The calculations, however would give a value as stated above. In a BaTty universe, the source receeding faster than c could easily have a component emitting photons faster than c in our direction. > > It cannot be made to happen anyway. I agree. In an Einsteinian universe, that is true. -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
From: George Dishman on 30 Oct 2005 07:59 Continued ... "Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message news:fnpvl152mh7h3rhvc4oi4rad3lne51lrp2(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 20:50:41 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: > >> >>"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message >>news:v6mql1psi0br3f201aslthtrvhefu0421j(a)4ax.com... .... >>>>>>>>http://www.briar.demon.co.uk/Henri/speed.gif >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It's wrong. You didn't use the mirror frame. You used the screen >>>>>>> frame. >>>>>> >>>>>>So use Galilean relativity to switch to the mirror >>>>>>frame and tell me what you get. >>>>> >>>>> I get exactly the conventional explanation. Light always moves at c >>>>> from >>>>> the >>>>> source to where the mirror will be when the beam gets there. >>>>> the path length is longer in one direction than the other. >>>> >>>>In that case you haven't actually tried to do it, >>>>you are just saying you did. >>> >>> I can visualize what happens. >> >>From what you said, I can tell your visualisation is >>incomplete. > > well use you head and complete it. .but you are limited to pixels.....so > you > wont improve on what I have presented. _Your_ visualisation is incomplete. I'm sure you can include what's missing if you think about it. You are visualising the ends of the paths correctly but not thinking about what happens between. In the mirror frame, the paths become curved and the speed is not constant. >>> It is exactly the same as the conventional explanation. >>> The path lengths are different and the light speed remains c everywhere. >>> Even >>> the kick of each mirror is normal to the next mirror IN THAT MIRROR'S >>> FRAME. >> >>No, in the mirror frame, the speed is continuously >>varying between the mirrors. > > I think you should only consider the instantaneous OWLS as the light > actually > hits the mirror. > In the mirror frame that is c. That's true bu you can't ignore what happens along the path because the total time taken depends not just on the speed at the ends but at every point. >>>>Sorry Henri, I don't respond to accusations of what other >>>>people might have said. I know Paul understands SR and >>>>you admit you don't so I'm not surprised you don't follow >>>>him. >>> >>> Do you not believe that light leaves its source at c? ....I find that >>> extraordinary. >> >>It would be, if that is what I had said, but I didn't. >>Here it is again: >> >>>>> Are you seriously suggesting that it leaves at some other speed? >>>> >>>>Light will be measured to move at c in any inertial >>>>frame, that's been known for a century now. >>> >>> How has it been known when it has never been measured? >>> You are starting to rave and preach, George. >> >>No, you are just in denial. The speed of light has been >>measured many times. > > In TWLS experiments with no moving parts. Sorry Henri, the Sagnac experiment measures the speed from a moving source and also gives c. > ...and according to the BaTh, in such experiments TWLS = OWLS = c. > So you and many others are right.... but for the wrong reasons. > The value of the universal constant 'c' has been accurately established > using > TWLS experiments. It has also been established that it is isotropic and isotropic plus TWLS gives you OWLS. >>>>>>> The part of the beam that goes from the source to the centre of the >>>>>>> mirror travels at c towards that centre no matter how the apparatus >>>>>>> rotates. >>>>>> >>>>>>No, in Ritz it is supposed to be c+mv in the lab frame >>>>>>(where m is a factor that depends on the number of >>>>>>mirrors). >>>>> >>>>> Well that is wrong. >>>> >>>>That's what Ritz predicts, I agree Ritz is wrong. >>> >>> I agree you are wrong and Ritz never said that. >> >>Ritz says the light is emitted at c relative to >>the source, hence it is c+mv in the lab frame >>where 'm' is a factor that depends on the number >>of mirrors. Why do you think that isn't correct? > > because of what I said above.. .you should only consider the instantaneous > OWLS > as the light actually hits the mirror. That is c. Not in the lab frame, it is c in the mirror frame. Both my comments related to that frame. However, you are still wrong in that to calculate the time, you need to know the speed at all points along the path. >>>>> It always travels at c relative to the (moving) point representing the >>>>> centre >>>>> of the next mirror. >>>> >>>>Yes, that's correct and follows from the above since >>>>the next mirror is moving at mv relative to the lab >>>>frame. >>> >>> The mirror is moving in a circle in the frame of the next mirror. That's >>> the >>> crucial point, George. >> >>The crucial point is that _any_ consistent theory >>must make the same prediction for _any_ experiment >>regardless of what frame you choose to do your >>calculations. Do the calculation properly and this >>time take into account the variable speed between >>the mirrors (and source and detector of cousre) and >>you _must_ get the same answer as in the lab frame >>or the co-rotating table frame. That answer is a >>prediction of a null output. > > You saw my diagram. The path lengths are obviously different in both > diirections. So are the speeds. Using the mirror frame, either rotating or non-rotating, will require you to integrate variable speed along curved paths. >>>>> The path lengths are differnet in either direction ..just as in the >>>>> conventional explanation. >>>> >>>>Right, in the lab frame, but the path length difference >>>>matches the speed difference hence to propagation times >>>>are the same in Ritz, hence a null prediction >>> >>> No George. I have just explained why not. >>> The conventional explanation applies. >> >>If by "tThe conventional explanation" you mean SR then >>you are wrong. SR says the speed in the lab frame is c >>while Ritz says it is modifed by the motion of the >>source. If they differ in one frame, they must differ >>in all. That's basic Galilean relativity. > > the SR explanation is really an aether one. Please stop wasting my time with that nonsense, the speed of the lab relative to the aether does not appear in SR nor do any of the aether effects on instruments. In fact aether theory is incapable of giving a true explanation and relies on the fact that all aether effects cancel out so that it can borrow the SR analysis by using the Lorentz Transforms. > Following my 'revelation', it now appears that the BaTh is the only > plausible > explanation. BaT doesn't provide any explanation whatsoever, it gives a null prediction. >>>>> The source revolves around the first mirror. >>>> >>>>Exactly, not the centre of the table. >>> >>> It revolves around that too. >>> >>> We must be careful here to disciminate between the ROTATING and >>> NON-Rotating >>> frames of the first mirror. >> >>Indeed, and I must be careful to distinguish between >>the light and the source, I hadn't noticed you changed >>the subject :-( > > again, you should only consider the instantaneous OWLS as the light > actually > hits the mirror. Again, you will get a wrong answer if you do that. >>> In the former, the source does not move or rotate. >>> In the latter, the source moves in a circle. >>> >>> In both cases, CMIIW, the source does not move radially wrt the first >>> mirror. >> >>Correct, therefore there is no Doppler, but I thought we >>had agreed that some time ago. >> >>Hoewever, in both those frames, the speed of the light >>varies between the mirrors, but in different ways. As >>I said, this all gets devilishly complex, the lab and >>rotating table-centred frames are simpler and all must >>give the same result. >> >>If you want to carry on considering the mirror frames >>by all means do so but you need to start taking other >>effects into account. > > I am content to acept that no matter how the table rotates, the speed of > light > from each member wrt the next remains c. You often say you are happy to accept things that are obviously wrong. Apply the Galilean transforms and see for yourself. >>>>Yes, that is exactly what I showed in this diagram: >>>> >>>> http://www.briar.demon.co.uk/Henri/speed.gif >>> >>> I haven't the faintest idea what you are getting at here. >> >>Simply showing by symmetry that the incident speed is >>c if the previous emission speed is c. > > I think it is wrong. It says the same as you have been up to now, that the speed at the ends is c. >>> the true situation is at: >>> http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/george1.jpg >> >>Rotate the diagram so that the rays are parallel and >>you get the same as mine. > > I dont understand that. > The horizontal line is the rest state. The slanted line is the path of the > ray > that reaches the centre of the mirror during rotation. (with the source at > the > same point in each case) Rotate the slanted line until it is parallel to the horizontal one. You are only rotating the diagram, I'm not suggesting any change to the experiment. Then slide the diagram up until the lines coincide and you get my diagram. We are saying the same thing but I drew mine in a frame based on the midpoint of the path to emphasise the symmetry. >>> The yellow beam is supposed to be collimated and coherent....but it will >>> always have a little deviation and dispersion. >>> >>> Without rotation, the centres of the source and mirrors are lined up >>> parallel >>> (black line). >>> During rotation, the part of the original beam that reaches the mirror >>> centre >>> is drawn diagonally in black. WRT that (moving) mirror, that diagonal >>> light >>> beam arrives with a one way speed of c. The path length is distinctly >>> longer >>> than the parallel one. >> >>Yes, in the lab frame but in that frame the speed isn't >>c since you have to vector add the speed of the source. >>It is c in the either mirror frame but as you said there >>is no radial motion in that frame. You have mixed bits >>from two different frames. > > Yes I undertand what you are saying... but that is taken into account when > the > reflection from the first mirror is considered. It is also moving at 45 > wrt the > beam...so you have a rather complicated reflection process occuring. I > think > you will find that it explains your question. No, we are talking about the time from one mirror to the next. The reflection is assumed to be instantaneous. To get time you divide path length by speed, or integrate delta times along infinitesimal elements of the path dividing by the speed at that element. You need to do that consistently, dividing distance in one frame by speed in another gives meaningless numbers. >>>>No, you have now proved that it predicts a null result. >>>>The speed is c and the path in that frame is unchaged >>>>by the rotational speed too. >>> >>> No No. The path changes just as the conventional theory states. >> >>No, as you said above "the source does not move >>radially wrt the first mirror." > > But the mirror moves slightly while the light is in flight. Only transverse, not radial. That was your point. The whole thing is messy in these mirror frames. >>>>What you have stated is exactly what I drew on that >>>>diagram and it is dated 1st Feb, 2004. You finally >>>>caught up! >>> >>> No George. >>> Light from the source always has a relative OWLS of c in both the source >>> frame >>> and the next miror frame. >> >>No, it is emitted and received at c but it varies along >>the path. Think about "c minus angular velocity times >>radius" and see if the penny drops. This is just a >>consequence of the Galilean transforms. > > you should only consider the instantaneous OWLS as the light actually hits > the > mirror. You can't do that if you want to know the time taken. If I leave home at 30mph and arrive at work at that speed, it doesn't mean I will take 50 minutes to cover the 25 miles. The roads outside the towns are much faster. > In the lab frame that mirror is moving at 45 wrt the beam. If the reflection is presumed to be instantaneous, only the speed along the path matters. The end result must always be the same as in the simpler lab frame and that is a null prediction, so although speeds vary and paths curve in the mirror frames, we know before we start that all effects must cancel. George
From: Jeff Root on 30 Oct 2005 09:53 George Dishman wrote: > The reflection is assumed to be instantaneous. Is that actually the case? Even if there is an extremely tiny delay, it is something that would have been measured by hoards of researchers and optical engineers, under a vast range of conditions. Yet I'm not aware of what the actual case is. I'd say I'm horribly ignorant. -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
From: Jerry on 30 Oct 2005 10:52 Jeff Root wrote: > George Dishman wrote: > > > The reflection is assumed to be instantaneous. > > Is that actually the case? Even if there is an extremely > tiny delay, it is something that would have been measured > by hoards of researchers and optical engineers, under a > vast range of conditions. Yet I'm not aware of what the > actual case is. I'd say I'm horribly ignorant. We can make a rough estimate of the reflection delay. Think of gold leaf, gold pounded so thin that it is almost transparent. Light penetrates the surface of a bar of gold roughly the thickness of gold leaf (on the order of 0.1 micron) before being coherently re-radiated (i.e. reflected). A rough estimate of the reflection delay would therefore be on the order of 3x10^-16 seconds. Whatever the figure, it's not relevant to the analysis of the Sagnac experiment, being unaffected by rotation. Why do you ask? Jerry
From: Paul B. Andersen on 30 Oct 2005 15:28
Henri Wilson skrev: > On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 22:41:26 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" > <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: > > >Henri Wilson wrote: > >> On 26 Oct 2005 14:19:26 -0700, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)hia.no> > >> wrote:> > >>>Henri Wilson skrev: > >>> > >>>>"Paul B. Andersen" wrote: > >>> >>>But according to you, the BaT predicts a light curve > >>> >>>quite different from this: > >>> >>>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. > >>> >>> > >>> >>>Wrong prediction -> theory falsified. > >>> >>>BaT is falsified. > >>>>>>There are other factors to consider. > >>>>> > >>>>>Such as? > >>>> > >>>>day/night temperature variation. > >>>>Star shape > >>>>Local extinction > >>>>Long term extinction, if any. > >>> > >>>You are funny, Henri. :-) > >>>You claim that you by assuming that Algol is a star > >>>orbited by a large planet can make the BaT predict > >>>the observed light curve. > >>>(A ridiculous assumption, of course.) > >>> > >>>Yet you claim that there are so many other unknown > >>>factors to consider that you cannot make the BaT > >>>predict the correct light curve. > >>> > >>>Why did you then claim that you had made the BaT produce > >>>the correct light curve? > >> > >> > >> Have a look for yourself. > >> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/group1.jpg > > > >Exactly! > >But you did NOT consider any of the other factors like: > > day/night temperature variation. > > Star shape > > Local extinction > > Long term extinction, if any. > > > >Did you? > >Why is that? > >Don't these factors matter after all, Henri? > > > >Either these factors matter, or they don't. > > > >BTW, Henri: > >According to you, the BaT predicts a light curve > >quite different from this: > >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. > > > >Wrong prediction -> theory falsified. > >BaT is falsified. > > > >Now you can say that this is because the factors > >you didn't take into consideration matter, Henri. > > > >And if they matter, you can't claim that the BaT predicts > >this light curve: > >www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/group1.jpg > >because factors that matter are not taken into consideration. > > > >Or do the laws of nature change according to which phenomena > >you are explaining away, Henri? :-) > > Be patient Paul and all will be explained in due course. > Much has already. Indeed. The light curves are exactly as expected according to conventional theory. It's all explained. > >>>I know you are wrong because I know something > >>>about stars. YOU are ignorant, and make up whatever > >>>ridiculous physical processes that suite you. > >>>You are not even guessing. You are fantasizing. > >> > >> > >> Based on BaTh predictions, there is now good evidence that IR in many stars > >> comes from a lower layer than the visible. > > > >Evidence based on BaT predictions! :-) > >Great, Henri. > >The predictions of a theory is EVIDENCE! :-) > > > >Your stupidity never cease to amaze, Henri. > > Paul, on TV last light there was a program about a new pill that can be taken > to alleviate fear. > Would you like me to send you some in case your fear of being wrong all your > life becomes overwhelming? Nothing _I_ do can make _your_ stupidity any less amazing, Henri. Paul |