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 13 Nov 2005 09:48 Henri Wilson wrote: > > Wavefronts really exist only in the source frame. Quite. When I go out in my boat, the wavefronts disappear as soon as I start moving. Whatever is hitting my boat so hard are not wavefronts, they are only infinitesimal points. Paul
From: Henri Wilson on 13 Nov 2005 16:43 On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 11:44:10 -0000, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message >news:0mlcn197uu5d7383ug28ct9oav3t2ij5kq(a)4ax.com... >> On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 15:12:11 -0000, "George Dishman" >as I can get in ASCII. > >> There is an infintie number, each one moving along a different diagonal. >> If you represented them all, you would have a broad diagonal line. > >This is the best I can do in reasonable width: > > - - - - > - - - - > - - - - > - - - - > - - - - > - - - - >| | |-| | | | | | | |-| | | | | | | |-| | | | | | | |-| | | | | >|-| | | |-| | | |-| | | |-| | | |-| | | |-| | | |-| | | |-| | | >| | | | | | |-| | | | | | | |-| | | | | | | |-| | | | | | | |-| > > >That's harder to read, at any time the picture would >be typically this showing two wavefronts moving up >the screen having left the tube and the wavefront >inside the laser moving down towards the rear mirror: You are still drawing only a few of them. > > - > > > > - > | | > |-| > | | > >>>> The whole path is moving sideways in the moving frame. >>>> George, when you drive past a light pole, does it lean over diagonally? >>>> If ants are crawling up it, do their bodies point diagonally? >>>> >>>> Of course not!! >>> >>>The path of each ant is diagonal which is what we >>>are discussing, but if you want to go into more >>>detail, consider what the above diagram would look >>>like in the moving frame. >> >> The ant bodies remain aligned vertically in the moving frame. > >Indeed but that is where your analogy breaks down >and a spherical object would be more appropriate. It would fool some people. How about using spinning spheres eh George.... Does their spin axis lean over diagonally? Of course not. >> Each infinitesimal element of an ant (infinitely smaller than a molecule) >> follows a diagonal path. > >The mathematical point locating the centre of momentum >of the ant moves diagonally. Your infinitesimal elements >only clouds the issue but yes their paths would also be >diagonal. George, there are NO diagonal ants. >> The ants take the same time to reach the top no matter who moves past. > >In your religion it does. I Einstein's gedanken, the >aim is to derive the time from the speed. That's his unproven postulate. > >>>As you said of Maxwell's >>>Equations, "a solution involves a wave moving at c" >>>and the magnetic fields still exist and are still >>>governed by Maxwell's Equations in the moving frame. >> >> Maxwell's equation applies to a wave that is symmetrical around an axis. > >No, Maxwell's Equations apply to the interactions of >electric and magnetic fields regardless of symmetry. >You can define a set of boundary conditions and they >will tell you how the fields evolve thereafter. For >example the waves produced by applying a sine wave >voltage to a metal sphere will differ from those >produced by a flat plate or a long wire. Maxwell's >Equations apply to the fields regardless of the shape >or motion of the source. That's rubbish George. Both waves are symmetrical about an axis which also defines the direction of movement. The whole concept depend on that movement. >For our purposes, just note that they apply equally >well in both frames. They don't. There is no wave moving diagonally. there is just a dimesnionless point. > >> You 'diagonal field' is skewed. > >Yes, and Maxwell's Equations must still apply or >they would be invalid. they don't apply to any skewed wave. If they did, the speed of the wave would be sqrt(c^2+v^2) >> >> The purple laser beam in my demo represents that. >> The green elements are completely different. > >Unfortunately your wiggly lines are easy to understand >but don't explain the behaviour of the wavefronts. There is only one wave. It is vertical in the source frame and it is vertical in the moving frame but moving sideways. George, hold a pen vertically. Now move you hand sideways. Does the pen lean over? >> >> ...and the axis of wave symmetry remains vertical in all frames. > >Truye, but I don't think you yet realise the consequence >of that, or at least you have avoided illustrating it. What do you think the green dashes represent in my program? >>>No, scientifically speaking, if we measure it we find >>>it has a speed of c whether we understand why or not. >>>That is an empirical statement. >> >> You are simply preaching the unproven second postulate. > >No, I am stating what is measured regardless of postulates. > >> That is hardly a scientific statement George. > >If I was stating the postulate, you would have a point. Well it certainly has NOT been measured. >>>You have a religious conviction that Galilean relativity >>>should hold and therefore you expect on faith that the >>>speed will be sqrt(c^2+v^2). >> >> It obviously is. > >"obvious" being a statement of faith. > >> It isn't light. It is a point on a graph. It can move at any speed. > >The point is representative of the wavefront which must >be a solution to Maxwell's equations in _both_ frames. There is NO wave moving along any diagonal. >> Of course. > >Thank you. No need to shout then. > >> but each part of the arrow moves along a different diagonal.... > >Yes. > >> and the arrow >> takes the same time to reach the top no matter how fast the car moves. > >Your religious assertion again. Don't state it, derive it. Physical processes are not observer dependent. >>>What Maxwell's equations say is that arrows always move in >>>the direction of the shaft. :-o >> >> But you claim they are moving diagonally. > >As you said, all the arrows move diagonally, and >the time evolution of wavefronts must be a solution >to Maxwell's Equations. Keep going Henri, we have >2 and 2 but you haven't tried to add them yet. Do the pen experiment again and you will see that vertical objects can move sideways without leaning over. >> You have now identified your own mistake. >> >>>> You have somehow turned one arrow into an infinite number. Brilliant!!!! >>> >>>You did that when you talked of a beam, which is a >>>collection of wavefronts. >> >> It is a collection of infinitesimal elements. > >If you wish to view it that way, that's your choice >though I don't see how it will help (unless you intend >to use Huygens method). The points that 'move diagonally' are not physical entities at all. >>>> It obviously moves at sqrt(u^2+v^2) >>> >>>If you prefer faith to measurement. >> >> You know there has never been such a measurement, George. > >The speed of light has been measured many times >Henri, I have no idea why you are denying that. HoHohahaha! George, TWLS has been measured and found to be consistent and precise. That is exactly what the BaTh predicts. In any TWLS experiment with all components at rest TWLS = OWLS = c. >>>> It has never been proved. >>> >>>A thought experiment can never prove a postulate. >> >> ...a postulate can never prove itself either... > >That's what I just said >:-| > >> particularly when that postulate >> was based on a thought experiment anyway. > >It wasn't, it was based on Maxwell's Equations, the speed >is the product of two measured constants, remember? Then why should differently moving observers produce the same value for c, via Maxwell, when any light beam will approach them at different speeds? ....you seem very confused. >> >> Anything that has zero size and no properties must be 'nothing'. > >But photons don't have "no properties" so your argument >fails. Well please give us a physical description of their properties. >>>That it possesses energy and momentum is what distinguishes >>>it from 'nothing'. >> >> How does your 'nothing' possess energy George? > >Easy, it isn't 'nothing' because your requirement that it >be 'nothing' is that it has no properties. Your argument >is circular. Define photon properties George. >>> >>>Momentum is frame dependent. For your laser, note that >>>moving the laser will give the usual Doppler effect >>>for an observer and the change in frequency gives a >>>change in momentum. >> >> Standard NM. > >Yes, to first order. Standard NM. > >>>> ...so let's stick with arrows. They are more like photons than are >>>> raindrops. >>> >>>Actually they aren't, rigid ball bearings are probably >>>closest. >> >> So you DO have a model for a photon, eh George? >> Tell us about it. > >No model, just properties. No clue either. >>>>>It is obvious. With knowledge of science as well as >>>>>intelligence, the error is also obvious, you are not >>>>>comparing like with like, just playing word games >>>>>comparing "the beam" versus an "infinitesimal element". >>>> >>>> George, the question is, do the links of the 'photon chainsaw' move >>>> diagonally at c or at sqrt(v^2+c^2)? >>> >>>No Henri, that isn't the question. Einstein is illustrating >>>a consequence of the postulate so the question is "Assuming >>>the links move at c, what other conclusions can we draw?". >>>Finding differences between that and the conclusions if >>>we assume the speed is sqrt(v^2+c^2) then provides a means >>>to test the postulate. >> >> well it has never been adequately tested. > >In your opinion. George, if a vertical laser beam is moved sideways, there is no way to measure any part of it that is moving diagonally. Any detector positioned to sense the diagonally moving element would merely detect an infinitesimal blip. I suppose an approximate answer could be obtained using adjacent diagonals of finite size. But I can tell you the answer now. It is sqrt(c^2+v^2). > >> No direct measurement of OWLS from a moving source has ever been achieved. > >Nor can it ever be measured since a one-way measure >requires synchronisation of clocks at the ends and >the means of sync completes the loop turning it into >a two-way measure. As I said, the two-way measure >plus a measure of anisotropy gives the one-way value >indirectly and both have been done many times. Clocks at rest can be absolutely synched using Einstein's method. Just make tAB=tBA. OWLS = c if source and detector are in the same frame. >>>> But George, can you not see that no continuous WAVE follows the >>>> 'wavefront' up its unique diagonal? >>> >>>Try drawing wavefronts and see what happens. >> >> I have. That's what my program shows. > >Your short lines moving up the screen are vertical >while the wavefronts should be horizontal. Oh for christ's sake George, there is no continuous wave moving up each infinitesimally wide diagonal. Can't you see that? > >> They all move up diffrent diagonals. > >Yes, that part is fine. > >> Surely you have enough intelligence to see that. >> Even Paul Andersen can. > >Yes but I don't think you realised what I was suggesting. I did...and it makes no sense at all. Infinitesimal points on a graph do not constitute 'wavefronts'. >>>Well obviously, the same is true in both frames as your >>>detector is passing through the beam briefly, but the >>>angle that has to change if you want to see anything at >>>all. >> >> You didn't understand my point. > >I did but again you aren't comparing like with >like. In one case you have the detector passing >through the beam so it sees a flash while in the >other it is permanently in the beam and sees steady >illumination so there is no comparison. If the green beam was diagonal, the detector would pick up a continuous signal. >>> >>>My suggestion is that you should draw just one as >>>it can be representative of all. >> >> By drawing a number of them, I show how the beam remains vertically >> aligned in >> the moving frame. > >Understood, but in the lower diagram their paths lie on >top of each other so you cannot see what is happening. >Perhaps you could highlight the first on the moving frame >and show it on lower then show the subsequent wavefronts >only on the upper where they don't overlap. That shows >both aspects. I suppose I can show dots moving up the green beam in the lower diagram. I will do that. >> A 'wavefront' is perpendicular to the wave axis. Wavefronts really exist >> only >> in the source frame. > >The electric and magnetic fields exist in both, and >disturbances propagate in accordance with Maxwell's >Equations which must apply equally in both. I think >you are now starting to see one of the problems that >faced science at the end of the nineteenth century. I can see those answer to that problem. The fields a skewed in all frames other than that of the source. they don't move at c. > >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 13 Nov 2005 18:00 On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 15:48:41 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)hiadeletethis.no> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> >> Wavefronts really exist only in the source frame. > >Quite. >When I go out in my boat, the wavefronts disappear >as soon as I start moving. Whatever is hitting my boat so hard >are not wavefronts, they are only infinitesimal points. > >Paul A fine laser beam is not like the ocean surface Paul. However, in case you are correct, I shall look through my telescope to see if star light is really coming to us via cosmic ships. 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 13 Nov 2005 18:27 On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 11:52:57 -0000, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message >news:omncn19cle09dml5jjtgdc7ib6bcsuvh0l(a)4ax.com... >> On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 10:35:04 -0000, "George Dishman" >> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >> wrote: >> >>>"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message >>>news:9r5an1pjg0a2vce62k32juf9345b93kp9b(a)4ax.com... >> >> George, George, George. >> >> I have finally woken up to your (and MY) complete misinterpretation of the >> problem. >> >> We have both been arguing about whether or not the fringes will move >> during >> constant angular rotation...and of course they don't. > >Actually they do, that's exactly how fibre gyros work. >The output is proportional to the angular velocity. >That is why these devices are such important evidence >and precisely why I have taken the trouble of bringing >them to your attention. George, a few months ago, you (or maybe it was Paul) went to great trouble to explain to me that fringes shift only during angular acceleration. Gyros indicate total rotation by continuously integrating the rate of fringe shift with time. Are you now saying this is wrong? >> We should only be considering what happens during angular ACCELERATION >> !!!!!! >> >> That is when the two path lengths change. >> That is when more 'wavelengths' fit into one path than the other. >> That is when fringes move. >> >> Path lengths chaneg because each mirror accelerates slightly as light from >> the >> previous one is in flight. Small second order effect, you say. No way! It >> is >> the whole basis of operation. > >Acceleration is a more complex subject, involving Doppler >at the source, Doppler at the receiver and the temporary >lack of cancellation due to the flight time delay between. When acceleration occurs, path lengths vary. The number of wavelengths in each path changes. Fringes MOVE. It matters not whether the beam moves at c or c+v. During constant rotation, including zero, there is no fringe movement. > >> Actually, you have shown that the BaTh does what it should do. It expects >> NO >> fringe shifts under constant rotation. >> >> BUT!!!! >> The standard SR explanation says that there WILL BE a continuous fringe >> shift >> during steady rotation. >> >> Sagnac proves SR to be wrong!!! > >If the output was proportional to acceleration then you >would be right. In fact the output is exactly what SR >predicts, it is proportional to the angular velocity in >actual devices and experiments. The output is given in degrees rotation from zero angle. That is calculated via a time integral during acceleration. I think you and your colleagues should learn a few facts. > >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 13 Nov 2005 18:28
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 02:15:52 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:omncn19cle09dml5jjtgdc7ib6bcsuvh0l(a)4ax.com: > >> On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 10:35:04 -0000, "George Dishman" >> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> >>>"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message >>>news:9r5an1pjg0a2vce62k32juf9345b93kp9b(a)4ax.com... >> >> George, George, George. >> >> I have finally woken up to your (and MY) complete misinterpretation of >> the problem. >> >> We have both been arguing about whether or not the fringes will move >> during constant angular rotation...and of course they don't. >> >> We should only be considering what happens during angular ACCELERATION >> !!!!!! >> >> That is when the two path lengths change. >> That is when more 'wavelengths' fit into one path than the other. >> That is when fringes move. >> >> Path lengths chaneg because each mirror accelerates slightly as light >> from the previous one is in flight. Small second order effect, you say. >> No way! It is the whole basis of operation. >> >> Actually, you have shown that the BaTh does what it should do. It >> expects NO fringe shifts under constant rotation. >> >> BUT!!!! >> The standard SR explanation says that there WILL BE a continuous fringe >> shift during steady rotation. >> >> Sagnac proves SR to be wrong!!! > >So, you are saying that BaT predicts the fringes will shift during a- >acceleration and return to original position when contant a-velocity is >reached while SR predicts the fringes will move during acceleration and >maintain a constant position when a constant velocity is reached? > >In otherwords BaT predicts return to original position upon ceasation of >acceleration while SR predicts return to original position upon ceasation >of rotation. > >If I understand the implications, it should be easy to tell the difference. > >Also, a light ring gyro should measure angular acceleration rather than >angular position. Idiot. Learn the facts. 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". |