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 7 Oct 2005 17:03 On Fri, 7 Oct 2005 19:01:12 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:kuv5k15e65jjb9f44egkok6qht68k537c0(a)4ax.com: > >> Oh, there could be. The brightness curves would be just about the same. >> The main difference is that the one involving an eclipse is dead flat >> between the troughs. > >That is assuming 'uniform brightness' of the star being eclipsed (which >isn't true because of the geometry of a spherical radiatior) and no gravity >lensing. That sounds like the argument of a desperate person. > >> ..unlike Algol's , which has a distinct >> concavity....just as the BaT predicts. >> 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 7 Oct 2005 17:11 On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 03:00:06 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine <ewill(a)sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote: >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. You don't know that. No such experiment has ever been performed. Anyway, the answer would be the value of the universal constant 'c'. >>>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"? Somewhere between 10^-20 and 10^-100 kgm/m3 >[.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: Henri Wilson on 7 Oct 2005 17:17 On Fri, 7 Oct 2005 08:09:36 +1000, Timo Nieminen <timo(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: >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. That's right. Trouble is, the field itself turns 'empty space' into 'space with a field'. >What do you say the effect of having "completely empty" space between the >two plates is? > >Likewise, you can measure permeability by measuring inductance. > Once again, the field itself turns 'empty space' into 'space with a field'. >> 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. I don't want to hear the 'traditional relativistic view'. However, the finding might be that the value of the universal constant 'c' is indeed constant. This implies that light emitted by the observer would travel at c wrt that observer. > >If there was an effect, it would be evidence of "ether wind", which brings >to mind a certain experiment by Trouton and Noble. According to aether theories the instruments would physically change so as to keep the measured values constant. > >> >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? very very very low . 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 7 Oct 2005 17:24 On Fri, 7 Oct 2005 08:41:04 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"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> >> 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! Your basic physics is sadly lacking George. >>>> 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 have seen it. I am not impressed by what is just the aether view. >> >> 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. I have explained that the source is moving normally to the next mirror IN THAT MIRROR'S FRAME. The 'v' in 'c+v' is zero in that mirror's frame. > >>>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. In a gaseous atmosphere, that might be true. >> 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. Ritz died prematurely. Axis rotation is not the same as polarization. > >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: George Dishman on 7 Oct 2005 18:34
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:lgpdk1p5mbj1dipuqa52n434e94li2hhtn(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 7 Oct 2005 08:41:04 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: > >> >>"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> > >>> 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! > > Your basic physics is sadly lacking George. If you think one mirror hits the next, it is your understanding of the apparatus that is sadly lacking Henri. >>>>> 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 have seen it. I am not impressed by what is just the aether view. > > >>> >>> 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. > > I have explained No "expalanations" Henri, show the maths that gives you the predicted output. > that the source is moving normally to the next mirror IN THAT > MIRROR'S FRAME. > The 'v' in 'c+v' is zero in that mirror's frame. No it isn't. If you insist on using the second mirror frame for all your calculations (a rather odd choice but any consistent choice of frame is as good as any other), then the speed of the light is the vector sum of c in some direction (to be determined) and v perpendicular to path. That isn't zero Henri, remember Pythagoras. >>>>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. > > In a gaseous atmosphere, that might be true. Nope. The speed is c in vacuo for SR and for Maxwell's equations but in anything other than a vacuum it is reduced by the refractive index. That's basic physics Henri, you must know that. >>> 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. > > Ritz died prematurely. His theory is what it is and still predicts a null result. > Axis rotation is not the same as polarization. Nor was it part of Ritz's theory so the prediction remains null. George |