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 6 Oct 2005 17:38 On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 09:57:16 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >news:1jd8k15muqi85pq2rto42t6lg6rrempmnl(a)4ax.com... >> On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 23:11:29 +0100, "George Dishman" >> George, I know you love rotating frames. >> >> Why don't you plot the instantaneous direction of movement of the source >> in the >> frame of the first mirror. > >Because it is the speed of the light that matters, >we have already discussed all this. George it is the vector speed of the source wrt the next mirror that matters. That is ZERO. > >> You will find it is perpendicular. >> >> Your earlier analysis didn't include the movement of the mirror frame. > >Of course it did Henri. I even did an animation >that showed you the rotation of the beams was in >the same direction, remember? But you didn't calculate the path difference. > >>>>>Henri, what is needed is >>>>>for you to take the experimental setup of Sagnac >>>>>and derive a prediction using your theory. Show >>>>>your working so that other people can understand >>>>>how to apply your equations for their own >>>>>experiments. That is what a theory is, something >>>>>that anyone can use as a predictive tool. >>>> >>>> I have already told you why I don't believe the sagnac effect is related >>>> to >>>> light speed. >>> >>>I don't care what you believe, if you want to >>>claim you have a theory, you have to make it >>>available for people to use. That's what a >>>theory is! >> >> If you don't know what the BaT implies then you shouldn't be here. > >I know what Ritz syas, the Sagnac experiement will >give a null result. You keep suggesting BaT won't >so I have to conclude either you can't do the math >or BaT is different to Ritz. Where did Ritz ever say that sagnac should give a null result. The MMX should... but not sagnac. > >>>>>My expectation is that applying your BaT to the >>>>>Sagnac will give the same null prediction that >>>>>using Ritzian theory gives, but you have never >>>>>said how what you call "BaT" differs from Ritz. >>>> >>>> It is the same. >>>> It is easier to write 'BaT'. >>> >>>Sure, but knowing they are the same means now I >>>don't have to keep qualifying my answers to say >>>Ritz is falsified but BaT might not be if it >>>differs. They are both falsified by Sagnac. >> >> rubbish. You are starting to dream, like Andersen does. > >Then it's up to you to show how you get a non-null >prediction, and you need to start by identifying >how BaT differs from Ritz. George, you have been trying to find a decent explanation for the sagnac effect for years. I have given you my opinion. Light has a built-in gyro in the form of an 'axis' > >George > 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 6 Oct 2005 17:43 On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 12:00:26 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine <ewill(a)sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote: >In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson) ><H@> > wrote >on Wed, 05 Oct 2005 20:14:32 GMT ><f0d8k1tjj2b8k5paid4fha5ajm5kh80adi(a)4ax.com>: >>>> at the same speed 'c' is a direct consequence of combining LET with >>>> christianity. >>> >>>Rubbish Henri, it was a consequence of Maxwell's >>>Equations and the _starting_point_ for SR. >> >> Maxwell's equations don't apply in completelyempty space, idiot. > >OK, I'll bite. OK Ghost, you are out in remote and completely empty space. What answers do you get when your instruments measure the two constants? Are they zero? What do they imply? Next, you accelerate at 0.0001 c/sec2 for 1000 seconds. What values do you now get for the two constants? What do they imply? > >Why wouldn't they apply? And what equations *do* apply? > >In any event, space isn't truly empty, though intergalactic >space is probably pretty desolate. Probably below the 'Wilsonian threshold density', where strange things happen to light. > >[.sigsnip] 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: Timo Nieminen on 6 Oct 2005 18:09 On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, it was written: > The Ghost In The Machine wrote: > >In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote: > >> > >> Maxwell's equations don't apply in completelyempty space, idiot. > > > >OK, I'll bite. > > OK Ghost, you are out in remote and completely empty space. > > What answers do you get when your instruments measure the two constants? > Are they zero? What do they imply? One very traditional way to measure permittivity is using a parallel plate capacitor. Neglecting edge effects, the capacitance is C=eA/d where e is the permittivity, A is the area, and d is the distance between the plates. Measure the capacitance, and you have the permittivity. What do you say the effect of having "completely empty" space between the two plates is? Likewise, you can measure permeability by measuring inductance. > Next, you accelerate at 0.0001 c/sec2 for 1000 seconds. > What values do you now get for the two constants? > What do they imply? Well, the traditional relativistic view is that moving through empty space won't have any effect, so the measurements would be the same as before. If there was an effect, it would be evidence of "ether wind", which brings to mind a certain experiment by Trouton and Noble. > >Why wouldn't they apply? And what equations *do* apply? > > > >In any event, space isn't truly empty, though intergalactic > >space is probably pretty desolate. > > Probably below the 'Wilsonian threshold density', where strange things happen > to light. And a quantitative value for the WTD might be? -- Timo
From: The Ghost In The Machine on 6 Oct 2005 23:00 In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson) <H@> wrote on Thu, 06 Oct 2005 21:43:23 GMT <jb6bk15um5c5gbjd8b71kvnkdr6gkk2e17(a)4ax.com>: > On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 12:00:26 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine > <ewill(a)sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote: > >>In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson) >><H@> >> wrote >>on Wed, 05 Oct 2005 20:14:32 GMT >><f0d8k1tjj2b8k5paid4fha5ajm5kh80adi(a)4ax.com>: > >>>>> at the same speed 'c' is a direct consequence of combining LET with >>>>> christianity. >>>> >>>>Rubbish Henri, it was a consequence of Maxwell's >>>>Equations and the _starting_point_ for SR. >>> >>> Maxwell's equations don't apply in completelyempty space, idiot. >> >>OK, I'll bite. > > OK Ghost, you are out in remote and completely empty space. There are certain practical difficulties in such -- not the least of which is my presence influencing the measurement...but OK. :-) > > What answers do you get when your instruments measure the two constants? > Are they zero? What do they imply? What constants? epsilon_0? mu_0? c? k? > > Next, you accelerate at 0.0001 c/sec2 for 1000 seconds. > What values do you now get for the two constants? > What do they imply? This experiment cannot distinguish between SR and BaT. It *can* distinguish between LET and SR or LET and BaT. All four constants remain the same. > > >> >>Why wouldn't they apply? And what equations *do* apply? >> >>In any event, space isn't truly empty, though intergalactic >>space is probably pretty desolate. > > Probably below the 'Wilsonian threshold density', where > strange things happen to light. OK, dumb question #2: what value/quantity/units is the "Wilsonian threshold density"? [.sigsnip] -- #191, ewill3(a)earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless.
From: George Dishman on 7 Oct 2005 03:41
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:m26bk1l7hos4smr6d7759jpsaspc54p5pk(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 09:57:16 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: > >> >>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >>news:1jd8k15muqi85pq2rto42t6lg6rrempmnl(a)4ax.com... >>> On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 23:11:29 +0100, "George Dishman" > >>> George, I know you love rotating frames. >>> >>> Why don't you plot the instantaneous direction of movement of the source >>> in the frame of the first mirror. >> >>Because it is the speed of the light that matters, >>we have already discussed all this. > > George it is the vector speed of the source wrt the next mirror that > matters. > > That is ZERO. No it isn't Henri, it is the vector speed of the LIGHT wrt the next mirror that matters. You aren't bouncing one mirror off the next! >>> You will find it is perpendicular. >>> >>> Your earlier analysis didn't include the movement of the mirror frame. >> >>Of course it did Henri. I even did an animation >>that showed you the rotation of the beams was in >>the same direction, remember? > > But you didn't calculate the path difference. Because we were discussing whether the angle changed. You can find the path length calculation on most web pages about the effect. >>>>I don't care what you believe, if you want to >>>>claim you have a theory, you have to make it >>>>available for people to use. That's what a >>>>theory is! >>> >>> If you don't know what the BaT implies then you shouldn't be here. >> >>I know what Ritz syas, the Sagnac experiement will >>give a null result. You keep suggesting BaT won't >>so I have to conclude either you can't do the math >>or BaT is different to Ritz. > > Where did Ritz ever say that sagnac should give a null result. Do the calculation yorself. That's the thing about a published theory, anyone can apply it to anything. > The MMX should... but not sagnac. Try it for yourself. Post your working here so we can see how you did it. >>Then it's up to you to show how you get a non-null >>prediction, and you need to start by identifying >>how BaT differs from Ritz. > > George, you have been trying to find a decent explanation for the sagnac > effect > for years. Trivial Henri, the speed of light is c in the lab frame does it perfectly. > I have given you my opinion. Light has a built-in gyro in the form of an > 'axis' Ritz doesn't have a "built-in gyro" in the theory and you said BaT was the same as Ritz. Anyway, as I have pointed out, photon spin is known and is related to polarisation, and commercial iFOGs use elliptical cross-section fibre to prevent changes of polarisation reducing the accuracy so think again. George |