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 18 Sep 2005 05:32 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:uq2ki19gafgv7loe21fhv9v8s4hhpq4808(a)4ax.com: > On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 23:02:26 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > I left out the '1'. > see www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/group1.jpg Better, but I see significant phase shift from cycle to cycle. Such could not occur with orbiting bodies. However, such phase shifts ARE common to relaxation oscillators. Those plots are excellent evidence against WHC and for huff and puff. -- 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 18 Sep 2005 06:33 "bz" <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message news:Xns96D52E8A7B8D7WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139... > H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in > news:uq2ki19gafgv7loe21fhv9v8s4hhpq4808(a)4ax.com: > >> On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 23:02:26 +0100, "George Dishman" >> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> >> I left out the '1'. >> see www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/group1.jpg > > Better, but I see significant phase shift from cycle to cycle. > Such could not occur with orbiting bodies. > > However, such phase shifts ARE common to relaxation oscillators. > > Those plots are excellent evidence against WHC and for huff and puff. What is still missing is his predicted velocity curves. Will the phase match or be 90 degrees out? How about the shape? Having matched the brightness, most of his free parameters should be defined so now the spectroscopic evidence is getting to be a sensible test. George
From: jgreen on 18 Sep 2005 07:41 George Dishman wrote: > <jgreen(a)seol.net.au> wrote in message > news:1127003839.831544.121540(a)g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > > > George Dishman wrote: > ... > >> What I want to know is how that fits the original > >> context which was a detector that could distinguish > >> between the ship moving while the port was at rest > >> versus the port moving and the ship at rest with > >> the same relative motion. Jim said "However you cut > >> it, there IS a difference ..." which could be > >> determined by 'Jim's Motion Detector'. In other > >> words he disagrees with Galilean relativity, perhaps > >> having some sort of 'absolute motion' philosophy > >> hence his comments about the centre of the universe. > >> To be honest I think he has just lost the plot, none > >> of this makes any sense. > > > > Try this: > > Build a monochromatic source and two identical filters which are > > transparent to that frequency/wavelength only. > > Place the source and one filter on a rocket, and leave the other > > behind. > > OK, that's clear. > > > With the rocket at speed ref earth, split the source beam, sending one > > half straight to earth, and the other through the filter --> earth. > > What do you think will be noticed? > > Good question so far but you should have left > it at that. > > > Remember, for both to make it to > > earth AND through the earth based filter, we know that there CANNOT > > have been a doppler shift between the source and the space based > > filter, or the beam would have been blocked there! > > That is correct, you just gave half the answer. > > The filter on the ship is not moving relative to > the source so there is no Doppler shift and the > second beam passes through. Both beams leave the > craft. > > The second part is what happens on Earth which > you didn't address. When they reach Earth, it > is moving relative to the source so the Doppler > effect means neither beam passes through the > Earth filter. > > Your subsequent comments don't seem related to > the above question at all and I can't for the > life of me imagine what point you think this > gedanken makes. > > George > > > > ........or did these > > amazingly talented photons KNOW to change their f/u AFTER passing > > through the space filter???????? > > > > Jeff seems to be (subliminally) aware of what is actually happening > > to/on the train, when he mentions that SR describes the relationship > > between the observers , and the "observed" ONLY! This suggests that he > > realises that the "measurements" are due to the illusions produced by > > an object's velocity, and how the finite nature of information transfer > > by way of emr distorts the true situation to these observers. > > My position is, that although emr is ubiquitous throughout the universe > > in varying "densities", the "universe" doesn't give a shrug whether > > information is transfered or not, and WHAT puny humans wrongly perceive > > and deduce. Objects still exist for the blind, and distance exists > > between bodies, whether emr passes between them or not. Similarly, > > velocity of, and that of other objects transitting from one to the > > other, also "exists". > > If we are denied the emans to measure it, tough! The universe doesn't > > care. > > Observers are mistaken. AE was such an observer. Lucky you, that you are not living in the era when alchemists were burnt at the stake! Think on it! You have turned sapphire to emerald, to allow transfer of ALL light as posited. (Hint: an emerald remains an emerald, regardless of its velocity ref ANYTHING) attn Jeff R: If there is measuremnt sans emr, what are the standards???? Jim
From: George Dishman on 18 Sep 2005 08:05 <jgreen(a)seol.net.au> wrote in message news:1127043675.167956.107670(a)o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... > > George Dishman wrote: >> <jgreen(a)seol.net.au> wrote in message >> news:1127003839.831544.121540(a)g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >> > >> > George Dishman wrote: >> ... >> >> What I want to know is how that fits the original >> >> context which was a detector that could distinguish >> >> between the ship moving while the port was at rest >> >> versus the port moving and the ship at rest with >> >> the same relative motion. Jim said "However you cut >> >> it, there IS a difference ..." which could be >> >> determined by 'Jim's Motion Detector'. In other >> >> words he disagrees with Galilean relativity, perhaps >> >> having some sort of 'absolute motion' philosophy >> >> hence his comments about the centre of the universe. >> >> To be honest I think he has just lost the plot, none >> >> of this makes any sense. >> > >> > Try this: >> > Build a monochromatic source and two identical filters which are >> > transparent to that frequency/wavelength only. >> > Place the source and one filter on a rocket, and leave the other >> > behind. >> >> OK, that's clear. >> >> > With the rocket at speed ref earth, split the source beam, sending one >> > half straight to earth, and the other through the filter --> earth. >> > What do you think will be noticed? >> >> Good question so far but you should have left >> it at that. >> >> > Remember, for both to make it to >> > earth AND through the earth based filter, we know that there CANNOT >> > have been a doppler shift between the source and the space based >> > filter, or the beam would have been blocked there! >> >> That is correct, you just gave half the answer. >> >> The filter on the ship is not moving relative to >> the source so there is no Doppler shift and the >> second beam passes through. Both beams leave the >> craft. >> >> The second part is what happens on Earth which >> you didn't address. When they reach Earth, it >> is moving relative to the source so the Doppler >> effect means neither beam passes through the >> Earth filter. >> >> Your subsequent comments don't seem related to >> the above question at all and I can't for the >> life of me imagine what point you think this >> gedanken makes. >> >> George >> >> >> > ........or did these >> > amazingly talented photons KNOW to change their f/u AFTER passing >> > through the space filter???????? >> > >> > Jeff seems to be (subliminally) aware of what is actually happening >> > to/on the train, when he mentions that SR describes the relationship >> > between the observers , and the "observed" ONLY! This suggests that he >> > realises that the "measurements" are due to the illusions produced by >> > an object's velocity, and how the finite nature of information transfer >> > by way of emr distorts the true situation to these observers. >> > My position is, that although emr is ubiquitous throughout the universe >> > in varying "densities", the "universe" doesn't give a shrug whether >> > information is transfered or not, and WHAT puny humans wrongly perceive >> > and deduce. Objects still exist for the blind, and distance exists >> > between bodies, whether emr passes between them or not. Similarly, >> > velocity of, and that of other objects transitting from one to the >> > other, also "exists". >> > If we are denied the emans to measure it, tough! The universe doesn't >> > care. >> > Observers are mistaken. AE was such an observer. > > Lucky you, that you are not living in the era when alchemists were > burnt at the stake! > Think on it! You have turned sapphire to emerald, to allow transfer of > ALL light as posited. > (Hint: an emerald remains an emerald, regardless of its velocity ref > ANYTHING) If a train is leaving you after it passes through a station, the whistle note sounds lower. If your ear could only hear one note, you would hear the whistle if you were on the train but not if you were on the platform. As the ship moves away from Earth, the same thing will happen. Why do you expect something different? George
From: Paul B. Andersen on 18 Sep 2005 15:50
Henri Wilson wrote: > On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 14:06:45 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" > <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: > > >>Henri Wilson wrote: >> >>>On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 12:34:46 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >>><paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: Paul B. Andersen wrote January 2005: | Done. | In less than one hour. | 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 why keep discussing what is settled a long time ago? >>>>The ballistic theory predicts no Sagnac effect. >>>>The ballistic theory is falsified. >>> >>> >>>Rubbish. >> >>What's rubish? >>The calculation you did a long time ago showing >>that the ballistic theory predicts that the time >>has no first order dependency on the speed? No comment, Henri? I have shown that the ballistic theory predicts that the time for the light beam to go around the Sagnac ring has no first order dependency on the speed. You claim to have done the same calculation a long time ago. Was the calculation you made a long time ago rubbish? >>>You know that the sagnac supports LET if anything. >> >>Quite. >>Sagnac confirms LET, Michelson's ether theory and SR. >>It falsifies the ballistic theory. > > > It has nothing to do with the BaT. What has nothing to do with the BaT? The ballistic theory predicts that the time for the light beam to go around the Sagnac ring has no first order dependency on the rotation speed. That means that the ballistic theory predicts that there should be no fringe shifts when the Sagnac ring is rotated. Sagnac falsifies the ballistic theory. >>>It does not rfute the BaT because the light emitted by the source is moving >>>normal to hte next mirror IN THAT MIRROR'S FRAME. It is NOT moving at c+v wrt >>>that mirror at all. >> >>Well said. >>That's why Sagnac falsifies BaT. > > > It has nothing to do with the BaT. > Each member is moving at right angles to the next member in the frame of that > next member. What has nothing to do with the ballistic theory? Because - as you correctly state - the light according to the ballistic theory is NOT moving at c+v wrt that mirror at all, but is moving with the speed c in the mirror frame, will the light according to the ballistic theory use the same time in either direction regardless of the rotation of the mirror frame. So the ballistic theory predicts no Sagnac effect. Have the wrong predictions of the ballistic theory nothing with the ballistic theory to do? :-) But I think I got your point. It is that the motion of mirrors will affect the light path drawn in the mirror frame regardless of which theory you use to explain it, and that it is this that is responsible for the Sagnac effect. It is true that such an effect exists, but this effect is NOT the Sagnac effect. So what is this effect? Let's draw the light path between the mirrors when the ring is not rotating. The light path is then the same for both beams. / \ /-----------\ /| |\ | | | | | | \| |/ \-----------/ \ / So what happens when the ring is rotating? (Remember that we are talking about the shape of the light paths as viewed in the mirror frame.) The light paths will not be the same in both directions. The light path of the beam going in the same direction as the rotation will be slightly curved inwards (concave) while the light path of the light beam going in the opposite direction will be slightly curved outwards (convex). So the lengths of the light paths will be very slightly longer than when it is not rotating, and the difference of the lengths of the two light paths will be extremely little different. But this effect is extremely small, it is no first order effect, like the Sagnac effect is. You have to be pretty desperate to claim that this is the cause of the Sagnac effect. Which you obviously are. Paul |