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 19 Sep 2005 23:20 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:e4fui15c9pund6nt3anf6bfog2lgbt7c2o(a)4ax.com: > On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 10:04:33 +0000 (UTC), bz > <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > >>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>news:bnori1972nes8ps891m3p12hm4s2mdmt5d(a)4ax.com: >> > >>>> >>>>Better, but I see significant phase shift from cycle to cycle. >>>>Such could not occur with orbiting bodies. >>> >>> If you read the comments about these brightness curves, you will learn >>> that they are somewhat vague. They are usually based a collection of >>> independent observations from different observers and are often >>> affected by weather conditions. >> >>Nonetheless, such 'vagueness' is unlikely to produce the PHASE shifts >>that are clearly visible. They can produce amplitude variation (which is >>NOT the problem) but not phase shifts. > > What you see as phase shifts are just slight anomalies caused by poor > viewing conditions. Poor viewing conditions can shift the amplitude but they are unlikely to cause peoples clocks to shift. >>>>However, such phase shifts ARE common to relaxation oscillators. >> >>>>Those plots are excellent evidence against WHC and for huff and puff. >> >> >>> ....and that statement is evidence that you are a hopelessly >>> brainwashed fool. >> >>Momma told me not to call people names because such behavior reflected >>back upon me and made people think she did a poor job raising me. > > sorry Buzz. If you were, you wouldn't. -- 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: jgreen on 19 Sep 2005 23:53 George Dishman wrote: > <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? So you wish to equate sound in a medium (air), to light? OK, but that makes light propagation dependent on jello (aether). jello recipe: take a cup of nothing (space), and subject it to a gravitational field. Cook for 1 second, or a billion years, depending on the strength of the field. (change subject) Proposed experiment: Set up a standard apparatus for measuring light velocity, using the source as part of the setup, and the spinning wheels/discs on an axle through which the light shines as per laboratory. When a value is determined for c, take the apparatus into space, and adjust the spin to give the same result for the onboard source. (in case you claim the clock alters the axle revs). Now use Andromeda as the source! THIS light will NOT transit the apparatus as before, because the light from Andromeda is from a source with a different velocity. (change again) Serious comment is still required, as to whether there is a distance between objects in the abscence of emr, what could its units be, and could they have relative motion Cheers jim
From: George Dishman on 20 Sep 2005 04:53 <jgreen(a)seol.net.au> wrote in message news:1127188386.277110.275320(a)g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > George Dishman wrote: >> <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? > > So you wish to equate sound in a medium (air), to light? No. You get a reduced frequency if you sail away from a source of ripples in water or if the source moves through the water but you also get the same reduction in impact frequency if you run away from a machine gun. It will happen with any repetetive phenomenon as long as the speed is finite simply because each event has farther to travel from source to detector than the previous one. That's why I don't understand what point you were trying to make. The same first order Doppler effect occurs in aether theory, Ritzian theory and SR. Only the second order part differs and that was measured by Ives and Stilwell and it only agrees with SR (and a Lorentzian aether of course). <snip humour> > (change subject) > Proposed experiment: > Set up a standard apparatus for measuring light velocity, using the > source as part of the setup, and the spinning wheels/discs on an axle > through which the light shines as per laboratory. When a value is > determined for c, take the apparatus into space, and adjust the spin to > give the same result for the onboard source. (in case you claim the > clock alters the axle revs). Now use Andromeda as the source! THIS > light will NOT transit the apparatus as before, because the light from > Andromeda is from a source with a different velocity. I believe this has been done and the speed was the same but I couldn't cite an experimeter. Most people would just say it is because the light is moving through the atmosphere. If the speed didn't change when starlight hits the atmosphere, you wouldn't get refraction. Remember c is the speed in vacuo. > (change again) > Serious comment is still required, as to whether there is a distance > between objects in the abscence of emr, what could its units be, Two serious answers: 1) before we switched to using light, we used a standard metal bar as the unit. In the absence of emr, that could still be used (ignoring the fact that in the absence of emr, only gas could exist). > and could they have relative motion 2) If you lay the bar parallel to a piece of string you get one measurement but lay it at an angle and you get another (as I have said many times) due to rotation in the x-y plane. Similarly if the bar is parallel but moving you will get a different measured value because it is rotated in the x-t plane compared to the bar at rest. George
From: Jeff Root on 20 Sep 2005 05:32 >> 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? > > So you wish to equate sound in a medium (air), to light? > OK, but that makes light propagation dependent on jello > (aether). Yes. Because light and sound are both wave phenomenon, and therefore exhibit Doppler shift, they are equated with each other: Both require a medium for propagation, both are predicted by Maxwell's equations, both are audible in certain frequency ranges, both can cause sunburn, both have emission and absorption lines in their spectra, both can be used for communication with spacecraft, both can be made with a cello. A jello cello. -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
From: Paul B. Andersen on 20 Sep 2005 08:24
Henri Wilson wrote: > On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 21:50:03 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" > <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: > > >>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? Still no comment, Henri? >> >>>>>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. > > > The fringe shifts are caused by he different angles of approach by both beams > at the eyepiece. > Light has its own built-in gyro in the form of an 'axis'. Don't obfuscate the matter with nonsense, please. >>Sagnac falsifies the ballistic theory. > > > To the unwary it might. > > >>>>>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. > > > The ballistic theory does not encompass the sagnac effect. What a strange way to state that 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. > > > The angle between the two beams when they reunite is considerable. > It is that angle which causes the fringe shift. Nonsense. Even utter nonsense. You seem to be completely ignorant of how an interference pattern is formed, and why fringes shifts. Please take the time to read the following properly, I am using time to write it. To get an interference pattern with fringes, the beams must be diverging and overlapping. Consider this simple figure: 1 2 * * Two correlated (in phase) point sources emitting monochromatic, coherent light. (Laser and a beam splitter) --|--|--|---- screen A B C The point B is equidistant to source 1 and 2. We get a bright fringe through B. The fringe will be a straight line. The distance from the point A to point 2 is half a wavelength longer than the distance to point 1. We get a dark fringe through A. This fringe will be a bit curved. Likewise for point C, a dark fringe. Note that the reason why there are fringes at all is that the beams are diverging, so the distance from the source to the screen is different on different parts of the screen. The angle of the beams when they unite has obviously nothing whatsoever with the matter to do. The only thing that matters is the difference in the light path lengths to the two sources measured in wavelengths. The only way to make the fringes move, is to change the distance to one of the sources. If we move source 1 a bit upwards, the fringes will move to the left, and vice versa. So when fringes move, the difference between the two path lengths measured in wavelengths changes. Now let this "interferometer" rotate. Observed in the interferometer frame, the light paths will be slightly curved, so the angle with which the light hits the screen is slightly altered. But the fringes will not move, because the slightly curved light paths from point 1 to B and point 2 to B will still be equally long. The angle at which the beams hit the screen is utterly irrelevant. And please don't say something like "the beam will no longer hit point B, because it is deflected." That is irrelevant. The beams are diverging and overlapping, and what happens in point B depend only on the lengths of the paths of the light that hit point B, obviously. The same applies for the four mirror set up. It is stupid to say something like "the two contra going beams will no longer combine at the same point on the mirror." Some light will always hit at "the midpoint" of the combining mirror, and what happens in that point is only determined by the phase difference of the two light paths that actually hit that point. If the fringes shifts, it means that the phase difference changes, which only can mean that the length difference of the light paths have changed. The ballistic theory predicts no length difference of the light paths (measured in wavelengths) and thus no fringe shifts when the Sagnac ring rotates. But the fringes do shift when the Sagnac ring rotates. Sagnac falsifies the ballistic theory. No other conclusion is possible. Paul |