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: Harry on 7 Sep 2005 08:00 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:mt1sh19l0luoufefopet4deb8rr1801t46(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 16:38:33 +0200, "Harry" <harald.vanlintel(a)epfl.ch> wrote: > > > > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message > >news:k477h1pfchfct368g0f0nvoa1c1qpp91h1(a)4ax.com... > >> On 28 Aug 2005 20:30:24 -0700, "Jeff Root" <jeff5(a)freemars.org> wrote: > >SNIP > > > >> Apart from the redshift of light, they have never been properly > >substantiated. > >> Redshift is predicted identically by NM. > > > >Really? Not according to my calculations (discussed with Androcles some > >months ago). > > Read the Pound-Rebka experiment. > Light accelerates as it falls and blue shifts according to NM. GR syas light > sped remains constant but space shrinks. Not surprisingly, it ends up with the > same equation for blue shift. Hmm.. in that case, according to you atomic clock rate shouldn't be affected by height relative to the earth - but measurements on GPS satellites showed that clock rate is affected... Anyway, I was thinking about red shift as function of speed - see below. > >- What exactly is your Doppler equation, and why? > >- And how do you get the Sagnac effect with your theory? You apparently overlooked my most pertinent questions... Harald
From: Henri Wilson on 8 Sep 2005 02:46 On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 14:00:19 +0200, "Harry" <harald.vanlintel(a)epfl.ch> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >news:mt1sh19l0luoufefopet4deb8rr1801t46(a)4ax.com... >> On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 16:38:33 +0200, "Harry" <harald.vanlintel(a)epfl.ch> >wrote: >> >> > >> >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >> >news:k477h1pfchfct368g0f0nvoa1c1qpp91h1(a)4ax.com... >> >> On 28 Aug 2005 20:30:24 -0700, "Jeff Root" <jeff5(a)freemars.org> wrote: >> >SNIP >> > >> >> Apart from the redshift of light, they have never been properly >> >substantiated. >> >> Redshift is predicted identically by NM. >> > >> >Really? Not according to my calculations (discussed with Androcles some >> >months ago). >> >> Read the Pound-Rebka experiment. >> Light accelerates as it falls and blue shifts according to NM. GR syas >light >> sped remains constant but space shrinks. Not surprisingly, it ends up with >the >> same equation for blue shift. > >Hmm.. in that case, according to you atomic clock rate shouldn't be affected >by height relative to the earth - but measurements on GPS satellites showed >that clock rate is affected... >Anyway, I was thinking about red shift as function of speed - see below. > >> >- What exactly is your Doppler equation, and why? >> >- And how do you get the Sagnac effect with your theory? > >You apparently overlooked my most pertinent questions... sagnac isn't affected by small changes in light speed. During rotation, the source moves at right angles to the first mirror, etc. > >Harald > HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
From: Harry on 8 Sep 2005 03:54 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:ofnvh1he5ui4lqfkhijnss5fq5abjqsm80(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 14:00:19 +0200, "Harry" <harald.vanlintel(a)epfl.ch> wrote: > > > > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message > >news:mt1sh19l0luoufefopet4deb8rr1801t46(a)4ax.com... > >> On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 16:38:33 +0200, "Harry" <harald.vanlintel(a)epfl.ch> > >wrote: > >> > >> > > >> >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message > >> >news:k477h1pfchfct368g0f0nvoa1c1qpp91h1(a)4ax.com... > >> >> On 28 Aug 2005 20:30:24 -0700, "Jeff Root" <jeff5(a)freemars.org> wrote: > >> >SNIP > >> > > >> >> Apart from the redshift of light, they have never been properly > >> >substantiated. > >> >> Redshift is predicted identically by NM. > >> > > >> >Really? Not according to my calculations (discussed with Androcles some > >> >months ago). > >> > >> Read the Pound-Rebka experiment. > >> Light accelerates as it falls and blue shifts according to NM. GR syas > >light > >> sped remains constant but space shrinks. Not surprisingly, it ends up with > >the > >> same equation for blue shift. > > > >Hmm.. in that case, according to you atomic clock rate shouldn't be affected > >by height relative to the earth - but measurements on GPS satellites showed > >that clock rate is affected... > >Anyway, I was thinking about red shift as function of speed - see below. > > > >> >- What exactly is your Doppler equation, and why? > >> >- And how do you get the Sagnac effect with your theory? > > > >You apparently overlooked my most pertinent questions... > > sagnac isn't affected by small changes in light speed. > During rotation, the source moves at right angles to the first mirror, etc. No derivation of a Doppler equation I see... And about Sagnac, *during rotation* the speed of the source doesn't play a role in either theory. Bouncing rather complicates the issue, I doubt that you calculated it through but I'd like to see it if you did. Instead you could just use a round fibre in which bouncing can be neglected, or which even is made to bend the light exactly such that it doesn't bounce at all. Thus ballistic light should move with constant speed wrt the fibre - if not, why not? Harald
From: Henri Wilson on 8 Sep 2005 18:05 On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 09:54:55 +0200, "Harry" <harald.vanlintel(a)epfl.ch> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >news:ofnvh1he5ui4lqfkhijnss5fq5abjqsm80(a)4ax.com... >> On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 14:00:19 +0200, "Harry" <harald.vanlintel(a)epfl.ch> >wrote: >> >> sagnac isn't affected by small changes in light speed. >> During rotation, the source moves at right angles to the first mirror, >etc. > >No derivation of a Doppler equation I see... >And about Sagnac, *during rotation* the speed of the source doesn't play a >role in either theory. Bouncing rather complicates the issue, I doubt that >you calculated it through but I'd like to see it if you did. >Instead you could just use a round fibre in which bouncing can be neglected, >or which even is made to bend the light exactly such that it doesn't bounce >at all. Thus ballistic light should move with constant speed wrt the fibre - >if not, why not? Forget the fibre version. ...It's like integrating 0/0. Think only of the four mirror sagnac. > >Harald > HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
From: Harry on 9 Sep 2005 04:16
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:jcd1i11abmioioqoc2ccunab9n2pubil28(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 09:54:55 +0200, "Harry" <harald.vanlintel(a)epfl.ch> wrote: > > > > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message > >news:ofnvh1he5ui4lqfkhijnss5fq5abjqsm80(a)4ax.com... > >> On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 14:00:19 +0200, "Harry" <harald.vanlintel(a)epfl.ch> > >wrote: > >> > > >> sagnac isn't affected by small changes in light speed. > >> During rotation, the source moves at right angles to the first mirror, > >etc. > > > >No derivation of a Doppler equation I see... > >And about Sagnac, *during rotation* the speed of the source doesn't play a > >role in either theory. Bouncing rather complicates the issue, I doubt that > >you calculated it through but I'd like to see it if you did. > >Instead you could just use a round fibre in which bouncing can be neglected, > >or which even is made to bend the light exactly such that it doesn't bounce > >at all. Thus ballistic light should move with constant speed wrt the fibre - > >if not, why not? > > Forget the fibre version. ...It's like integrating 0/0. It's the most simple and straightforward according to me, and your argument sounds blurry... > Think only of the four mirror sagnac. > HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > > Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. > The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong. |