Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: OWLS is not equal to c
Next: Mathematical Inconsistencies in Einstein's Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation
From: Henri Wilson on 17 Nov 2005 17:34 On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 14:13:24 GMT, "Black Knight" <Androcles(a)castle.edu> wrote: > >"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)hiadeletethis > >Ok. Anything to oblige. >Andersen, you have convinced me. >Your stupidity IS so gigantic that you do not >understand why your statement is nonsense. >Please don't forgive me for not having doubted that. >I'm sure it will happen again. This latest effort of his really epitomizes that stupidity. I seriously believe that the Norwegian water supplies lack the level of iodine required for normal brain development. > >Androcles. > HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
From: Henri Wilson on 17 Nov 2005 17:44 On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 13:24:58 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:5vifn1hpot3i2kr8doc3daq19qnhdd4jcm(a)4ax.com: > >> On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 02:15:52 +0000 (UTC), bz >> <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > >You said it. > >>>> Actually, you have shown that the BaTh does what it should do. It >>>> expects NO fringe shifts under constant rotation. > >IOW, no position change (back to zero). 'Shifts] = verb. We have cleared up the terminiology. 'Shift' is ambiguous, either noun or verb. Fringe 'displacement' is the amount it has moved from the zero rotation position. Fringe 'movement' describes the transient state between fixed displacements. So my statement should strictly be, "According to the BaTh, fringes are displaced but not moving during constant rotation". >>>> BUT!!!! >>>> The standard SR explanation says that there WILL BE a continuous >>>> fringe shift during steady rotation. > >IOW, a constant position change. (offset remains constant). I don't think that's what SR says. According to SR, the wavelength changes due to doppler effects and the number of wavecrests in each path will remain constant no matter how the path length changes (during acceleration) So Sagnac refutes SR. > >Facts are that in a BaT universe, the sagnac device would only show fringe >shift when accelerating. Fringes would go back to zero when velocity was >constant. That is not what I said. You confused the voun with the nerb. > >YOU said it correctly. Now you are backpeddling. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
From: Henri Wilson on 17 Nov 2005 18:11 On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 16:27:07 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)hiadeletethis.no> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 23:34:14 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" >> <paul.b.andersen(a)hiadeletethis.no> wrote: >> >> >>>I have explained why before, and you have fled the discussion before >>>because you were unable to refute my arguments. > >Which is the real reason you don't like to discuss ring lasers. > >>>In fact any gas laser falsifies the BaT. Coherent light means all >>>the light is going at the same speed. In a gas laser, the gas atoms >>>which are the sources of the light, are moving fast relative to >>>each other. BaT falsified. >> >> >> It is YOUR theory that each atom is a source. >> Other don't believe you. > >Don't be ridiculous, Henri. :-) >What in a gas laSER do you think is Stimulated to Emit Radiation, >if not the gas atoms? > >> Even if it were, the effect would be too small to worry about. > >Really, Henri? >The light from a laser can go to the Moon and back, >and still be coherent light. >Do you think that could happen if the speeds of the photons >were as different as the speeds of the atoms in the gas? > >The mere existence of gas lasers falsifies the BaT. Wouldn't you like that to be true eh? At what tempertatures do they run? What determines the direction of emission of a photon from an atom Paul? Come on, you are the expert..... Why should gas lasers work at all? >>>>FoGs are similar but effectively have an infinitie number of mirrors which >>>>reflect at infinitesimal angle. >>>>We aren't going to get anywhere multiplying zero by infinity. >>> >>>Not unless you know some math, of course. >>>Hint: limits. >>>What is sin(x)/x for x = 0? >> >> >> Irelevant. > >It is an example where "multiplying zero by infinity" get you somewhere. There are many such examples. >> There is constant internal reflection at grazing angles. > >You don't know what a mono-mode fibre is, do you? :-) No. ..and I don't care. I am discussing the four mirror sagnac. > >>>>So let's just stick with the four mirror sagnac eh? >>>> >>>>I think by now you will have realised that it fully supports the BaTh and >>>>probably refutes SR. >>> >>>Any Sagnac ring falsifies the BaT. >>>No question about it. >> >> >> My diagram clearly show the opposite. >> Path lengths change during acceleration. Wavelength is absolutely constant >> according to the BaTh. Therefore fringes will MOVE during angular acceleration >> and will NOT move during constant rotation. >> >> Sagnac disproves SR. > >Inventing new laws of nature proves nothing. >Any Sagnac ring falsifies the BaT. >No question about it. Sagnac clearly refutes SR. No doubt about it. > >> >> >>>>Poor old George has spent years proving that according to the BaTh, fringes >>>>will not move during constant rotation. That is of course what happens. >>> >>>Of course it is. >>>But I have in a much shorter time proved that according >>>to the BaT, the phase relationship between the two waves >>>will be the same regardless of the rate of a constant rotation. >>>That is NOT what happens. >>>The BaT falsified. >> >> >> You haven't proved that at all. > >You have a very selective memory. > >Paul B. Andersen wrote January 2005: >| To a first order approximation, (that is, ignoring >| terms containing higher than first order of >| the tangential mirror speed v) the light will use >| the same time in both directions. >| The math isn't very hard, but it isn't trivial either. >| I won't bother to go through all the math in this awkward >| medium, but I will write the first order terms: >| The length of one chord of the light path will be: >| d = srt(2)*r + v*t/sqrt(2) >| where r is the radius of the circle tangenting the mirrors, >| and t is the time the light uses to traverse the chord. >| The speed of the light will be: >| c' = c + v/sqrt(2) >| Note that these equations are valid for both direction, >| v being negative for the beam going in the opposite direction. >| So we have: >| c'*t = d >| c*t + v*t/sqrt(2) = sqrt(2)*r + v*t/sqrt(2) >| t = sqrt(2)*r/c >| The ballistic theory predicts that the time >| has no first order dependency on the speed! >| >| The sagnac effect IS a first order effect! >| >| You are proven wrong. > >Henri Wilson responded: >| I did that calculation a long time ago. > >So Henri Wilson agree to the statement: >" The ballistic theory predicts that the time > has no first order dependency on the speed!" > >Which obviously implies that the phase relationship between the two waves >will be the same regardless of the rate of a constant rotation. That's not at all correct. It will depend on how many wavelengths have sneaked in or out of each path during the acceleration periods. I think SR says 'no change' because of doppler. BaTh says, the phase relationship will be different for different rotation speeds but it will remain the same during any period of constant rotation. > >> You haven't even understood the significance of acceleration in all of this. >> You haven't a clue. >> Study my diagram again. > >I understand that acceleration have no significance in this. The acceleration period is when the FRINGES ACTUALLY MOVE because that's when wavelengths are either added or subtracted from each path. I know this is hard to see... but if I repeat it often enough the message might get through. >>>And you never refuted my proof. > >Quite the contrary, you have confirmed it. > >>>You fled it by claiming that interferometers works >>>in an entirely different manner than physicists think. >>>You are unable to explain _how_ you think it works, thought. >>>All you know is that it works in some mysterious way which >>>make the fringes appear at different positions even when >>>the phase relationship between the two waves are the same. > >Henri's explanation of why the fringes change position >despite the fact that BaT predicts no change in the phase >relationship: >Henri Wilson wrote: >| I have told you many times. The sagnac effect is caused by the angular change >| in the mirrors during the travel time of the light between them. The change in >| opposite ways for the two beams and cause opposite sideways displacements when >| reunited. That causes sideways fringe movements. Well I will now qualify that by pointing out that it is only during acceleration that the path lengths actually change. > >Henri Wilson wrote: >| Actually, the sagnac effect is completely unrelated to SR, the BaT or aether >| theories. >| >| The fringes shift because the mirrors rotate slightly during lights travel time >| between them. >| >| The clockwise beam ends up displaced one way, the anti-clockwise one the other. > >See? >The fringes do not change position because the phase relashionship >between the waves changes, interferometers doesn't measure phase >differences. They work in an entirely different manner. >How is not clear. > >This is unbelivable stupid, Henri. :-) Several areas of speculation were discussed in the early days before I realised that it was only during acceleration that finge movement occurred. My latest revelations overide all that stuff. > >>>A typical Wilsonian escape by inventing new laws of nature >>>for every new phenomenon that must be explained away. >> >> >> The sagnac effect occurs when the apparatus is experiencing angular >> acceleration. The reason is that, during light transit time, successive >> components are displaced by a little more than they would be under constant >> rotation. > >D = kw when dw/dt = 0 >But D is caused by dw/dt, not w, >because dD/dt <> 0 only when dw/dt <> 0. > >How incredible stupid! Just study my diagram again Paul before you rant about anyone being stupid. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/sagnac.jpg You will eventually realise why the number of wavelengths in each path changes only during acceleration. >> The amount is virtually the same whether c or c+v is used. >> Path length difference alone determines the position of the fringes. Small >> variations in light speed do not make any significant difference to the result. > >How incredible stupid! > >The Sagnac effect IS "the small variations in light speed". No it isn't. It is due to changes in number of wavelengths in each opposite path. > >delta_n = n+ - n- >where n+ and n- are the number of wavelengths around the ring >for the two beams, and delta_n is the difference. >n+ = (S/lambda)(c+v)/c S = circumference of ring >n- = (S/lambda)(c-v)/c >delta_n = (S/lambda)2v/c > >S = 2*pi*r, A = pi*r^2, v = w*r, lambda = c/f, T = 1/f > >delta_n = f*4*pi*r^2*w/c^2 = f4Aw/c^2 > >delta_t = delta_n*T = delta_n/f = 4Aw/c^2 > >Seen this before? >If this is the Sagnac effect, then it is caused by >"the small variations in light speed". We are analysing the four mirror sagnac Paul. In Sr, there wil be a doppler shift at each mirror which will make the number of wavelengths in each path remain constant for all rotation speeds. Sagnac disproves SR. > >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 17 Nov 2005 18:11 On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 15:39:14 GMT, "Black Knight" <Androcles(a)castle.edu> wrote: > >"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)hiadeletethis > ^^^^^^^^^^ > > >OK, Andersen, you have convinced me. >Your stupidity IS so gigantic that you do not >understand why your statement is nonsense. >Please don't forgive me for not having doubted that. >I'm sure it will happen again. He is getting into real trouble now. > >Androcles. > HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
From: Henri Wilson on 17 Nov 2005 18:25
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 14:12:17 GMT, "Black Knight" <Androcles(a)castle.edu> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message >news:4pkon15rsv5umfun56nghq86lkq9rub235(a)4ax.com... >> On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 05:27:29 GMT, "Black Knight" <Androcles(a)castle.edu> >> wrote: >>> >>>True for all differential equations and well-known. >>> http://www.wolfram.com/products/mathematica/newin5/ndsolve.html/ >>>This animation shows the application of the new numerical method of lines >>>algorithm for solving the Korteweg-de Vries equation demonstrating the >>>nonlinear interaction of solitary waves. Excellent spatial resolution is >>>achieved efficiently in this example by use of a pseudospectral >>>discretization method. >>> >>> http://math.furman.edu/~dcs/java/newton.html >>> >>>Look at the initial conditions for this convergence, it's Newton's. >>> >>>Try entering 0,1,6,11. Continue pressing "Draw Tangent" until the result >>>stops changing. >>> >>>0-> 11.38 >>> >>>1-> 3.37 >>> >>>6-> 6.68 >>> >>>11-> 11.38 (again) >>> >>>Now try 5. That's about midway between 3.37 and 6.68. It should converge >>>quickly. >>> >>>This is why it will be VERY difficult for you to model V1493 Aql. >>> >>> >>>> But even if I fed in the exact values, the figure of 8 would soon >>>> disappear. No >>>> computer is sufficiently accurate to maintain it. >>> >>> I understand completely. I've been telling you that for months, but you >>> are >>>too stubborn to listen. You just go on insisting your program is the best. >> >> That is an entirely different program. >> This one is my 'three body' animation. > >It doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell. Didn't you read ANYTHING I >wrote above? > > http://math.furman.edu/~dcs/java/newton.html > >Look at the initial conditions for this convergence, it's Newton's. > >Try entering 0,1,6,11. Continue pressing "Draw Tangent" until the result >stops changing. > >0-> 11.38 >1-> 3.37 >6-> 6.68 >11-> 11.38 (again) > >Now try 5. That's about midway between 3.37 and 6.68. It should converge >quickly. It doesn't. > >This is why it will be VERY difficult for you to model V1493 Aql. >[rest snipped] I don't see the connection between this equation and what my program predicts using true elliptical orbits. >Androcles. > 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". |