Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: OWLS is not equal to c
Next: Mathematical Inconsistencies in Einstein's Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation
From: George Dishman on 15 Nov 2005 09:55 Henri Wilson wrote: > 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. No, they are all there. Perhaps we have a different understanding of 'wavecrest' or 'wavefront' but it seems unlikely. I'll add a plot of field versus distance to the next bit: > > \ > > - ) > > / > > ( > > \ > > - ) > > | | > > |-| > > | | Does that help at all? Each hyphen is a cross section of a plane of maximum voltage. > >>>> 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.... Better. > Does their spin axis lean over diagonally? Of course not. Right, that is why polarisation is affected. > >> 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 move diagonally in the moving frame and they are still 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. That reply makes no sense in the context Henri. Deriving time wehen speed and distance are known is not a 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. I suggest you open a textbook and find out ho Maxwell's equations are used. > 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. The ant is still an ant. > >> 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. Right, but they do apply to electromagnetic fields so how are you going to resolve that ;-) > If they did, the speed of the wave would be sqrt(c^2+v^2) Nope, the speed is the product of the constants in the equations. > >> 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. It draws a straight line. > Does the pen lean over? I don't care, now repeat the sideways motion but this time also move it away from you at the same time. It moves diagonally and for the same amount of sideways motion the line is longer than the first time, that fact is all that Einstein uses. The line isn't a pen, but then it wasn't the pen the first time either so your stuff about "the light isn't light anymore" is just meaningless nonsense. > >> ...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? You said they were just a way of distinguishing the point representing the wavefront form the diagonal line so they don't mean anything. > >>>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. Of course the speed of light has been measured Henri, what are you raving about. > >>>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. The ant is still an ant. > >> 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. Right, but some values are, so while Maxwell's Equations must apply in all frames but the specific values of electric and magnetic field might differ from frame to frame. > >>>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. Einstein didn't say it wouldn't affect the polarisation of the light Henri, that's what your lean represents. > >> 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. Points aren't, no. Not in either the laser or moving frames, but the light whose location is represented by those points is still light, the ants are still ants. > >>>> 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. Exactly what I have been saying throughout. If you are now admitting I was right, I fail to see why you keep claiming it has never been measured. > 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, Because the constants are, ... well ..., constant? > when any light beam will approach them at different speeds? > ...you seem very confused. Which part of "constant" escapes you? > >> 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. Energy and momentum for example. Been here before? > >>>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. Energy and momentum for example. Been here before? > >>>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. Only to first order. > >>>> ...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. Two detectors on the diagonal path a known distance apart each with a partly silvered mirror and photodetector. Use the photodectors to measure the time the light takes hence speed. What's your problem? > 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). That's not what is measured. > >> 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. Fine, use that for the test above. > 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? The wavefront is roughly the same width as the laser aperture. Your concept of describing that as an infinite number of adjacent infinitesimal parts seems to be confusing you. > >> 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'. The points on the graph aren't infinitesimal, they are purely mathematical points of zero size. They represent the "very very small pieces" of the actual wavefront, or isn't that what you mean, it is what you have been saying. > >>>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. And you would then have to modulate it to measure its speed, the simplest way being to switch is on for a very short time and measure the flash. > >>>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. Cool, that would be a major improvement. > >> 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. Then you have to throw Maxwell's Equations in the bin. That was what was worrying them. George
From: The Ghost In The Machine on 15 Nov 2005 10:00 In sci.physics, donstockbauer(a)hotmail.com <donstockbauer(a)hotmail.com> wrote on 15 Nov 2005 04:49:09 -0800 <1132058949.576411.92810(a)f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>: >> Not a ghost of a chance of understanding sticks in water are not really >> bent just because they look bent, I suppose? >> Didn't think so. > > ****************** > > They are bent if you stick an actually bent stick in the water. > He is referring to the common illusion that when a whole straight stick stuck into a tank of water, when viewed from above the surface of the water, the stick appears bent, if not broken, into two parts. This is similar to, apparently, his view that we are looking at an illusion of the Universe, which only appears to work as though GTR is true. In this view, c'=c+v, which is after all consistent with all Earthly observations at low v, holds sway. Stars such as Aql1493 appear to confirm this view. (Other stars confirm GR.) Why he and H. Wilson disagree is not clear to me; both hold this general view, though Black Knight suggests he wants to be neutral and hold no preferred theory, while suggesting (if I'm reading him correctly) that we are all holding a massively corrupt variant of physics theory by using SR/GTR in such things as particle acceleration, GPS calibration, and astronomical observation. The first two of course require large sums of money; the last isn't quite as expensive and the average Joe can easily procure a telescope -- and wouldn't have too much trouble procuring a water jug, some electronics, and a photodetector as well, for measurement of incoming muons, superluminal or otherwise. Another possibility is energizing the plates of an old airgap capacitor until it sparks on occasion -- a primitive Geiger counter. This view is also consistent with MMX, which was only really designed to show the absolute velocity in a rigid luminiferous aether, where light therein travels at c relative to the aether. MMX cannot tell the difference between - lightspeed is c relative to everyone regardless of motion (SR/GTR) - lightspeed is c relative to everyone if motion is confined to non-accelerated motion only - lightspeed is c relative to the source only (Galilean relativity) - lightspeed is always vertical relative to its propagation and therefore does something rather peculiar (Seto) though in the last case one might ask whether MMX will show anything at all, in light of the motion of gas molecules in the light source. In any event, he appears to follow in the footsteps of Sekerin, and will also suggest superluminal muons, which is perfectly logical in this view though as yet unconfirmed by Earthly experiments. However, H. Wilson has a simple method around this: particles in such experiments are pushed around by EM radiation and therefore can't travel faster than light when pushed thereby. The main question here would be whether one can tell the diff between two Earth-accelerated 500 MeV protons colliding and two Earth-accelerated 7 TeV protons colliding. Regrettably, I have no data on either one. If one *can* tell the difference the EM "particle energy speed limit" is effectively ruined. One can also work around this using various target experiments -- e.g., throw subluminal protons at a wax target and measure the speed of electrons knocked out thereby, somewhat a la Rutherford. The curvature of the path in a cloud chamber should be more than sufficient, and one might not even need the wax; a proton could collide with a water molecule instead. A quick Google coughed up this reference of an experiment apparently done in 1935, and published in 1935-03-18: http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v47/i7/p573_1 DOI: 10.1103/PhysRev.47.573 URL: http://link.aps.org/abstract/PR/v47/p573 Collisions of High Energy Protons in Hydrogen by Milton G. White, Department of Physics, University of California Not horribly surprising, really; it's an obvious experiment. However, I can't get at the results -- they require subscription to the American Physical Society journal. It is not clear whether the Black Knight shares this workaround, or not. Particles such as Oh My God, which had 51 J of energy (for a proton, muon, or pi meson that's a whallop!) suggest that the Universe isn't limited by the "EM particle energy speed limit". Such particles are rare but are easily measured in detectors such as SuperKamiokande, which is basically a very large tank of ultrapure water surrounded by light detectors. SR has no "EM energy limit", of course; all particles simply cannot travel faster than light, no matter how much energy is thrown at the problem. -- #191, ewill3(a)earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless.
From: Paul B. Andersen on 15 Nov 2005 10:09 Henri Wilson wrote: > On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 22:33:10 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" > <paul.b.andersen(a)hiadeletethis.no> wrote: > > >>Henri Wilson wrote: >> >>>I have now completely explained why sagnac does not refute the BaTh. >> >>Nonsense. >>Sagnac falsifies the BaT. >>No question about it. > > > I hope the realization that you are wrong - again - doesn't completely destroy > your confidence. I know the fact that you are wrong - again - doesn't completely destroy your conficence. Paul
From: George Dishman on 15 Nov 2005 10:11 Henri Wilson wrote: > On 14 Nov 2005 05:37:52 -0800, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: > > >Black Knight wrote: > >> > >> Grandpa puts granddaughter and grandson on a carousel and watches > >> them walk around it in opposite directions. The pass each other on the > >> opposite side and meet back at grandpa if the carousel isn't turning, ... > > > >Good analogy but the source and detector are on > >the turntable so Grandpa is on the carousel. You > >have shown why Ritz says there will be no output, > >the kids return to Grandpa at the same time > >regardless of the rate the carousel is turning. > > Forget it George. I killfiled Andy some time ago since he wasn't reading my replies but there's no killfile on Google. If he's going to try to join in, he had better find out how the experiment is conducted, but he's got a long way to go to catch up with you. > I have now completely explained why sagnac does not refute the BaTh. No, you slipped up a bit at the end. I'll reply tonight, lunchtime is over. George
From: Paul B. Andersen on 15 Nov 2005 10:39
Henri Wilson wrote: > On 14 Nov 2005 15:41:12 -0800, "Jeff Root" <jeff5(a)freemars.org> wrote: > > >>Henri Wilson wrote: >> >> >>>The fringe shift is proportional to speed BUT IT OCCURS >>>ONLY DURING ACCELERATION. >> >>Henri, this was precious! Your ability to see only what >>you want to see and totally ignore reality is breathtaking. >>Re-read the short sentence quoted above and try to figure >>out how it contradicts itself. It is really comical! >> >> -- Jeff, in Minneapolis > > > You failed to appreciate that the word 'shift' can be both a noun and a verb. > > The fringe shift (noun) is proportional to speed but the fringe shift (verb) > OCCURS ONLY DURING ACCELERATION. > > Maybe the purists would suggest that I should have phrased it as "the shifting > of fringes"......... > > However I don't think you have the intelligence to understand the finer points > of this anyway. It probably takes a very special kind of intelligence to understand the fine point that "IT OCCURS" refers to an occurring verb. :-) Henri, isn't this a bit too stupid even for you? Why not simply admit that you wrote something else than you meant, in stead of trying to save your obviously self contradicting statement in such a stupid way? Paul |