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: jgreen on 8 Oct 2005 06:00 George Dishman wrote: > <jgreen(a)seol.net.au> wrote in message > news:1128499223.209426.270620(a)g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > > > George Dishman wrote: > >> <jgreen(a)seol.net.au> wrote in message > >> news:1128419173.735037.311150(a)g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > ... > >> > George, my old computer died on me, losing the email I remember quite > >> > vividly (from you) saying how sagnac machine works because the TIME OF > >> > TRAVEL of the signal alters. If you cannot see/understand that this > >> > refers to VELOCITY, as the DISTANCE does NOT ALTER, that is too bad! > >> > >> Sadly it seems you also lost my response to your comment, > >> the distance does alter Jim, the detector MOVES while the > >> light is in transit. In the experiment, the length is > >> known to change because we know the speed of rotation of > >> the table, the time is measured to change and when you > >> calculate the speed as distance/time you always get c. > > > > "Time" is MEASURED to change????? > > Say the path around the machine is 3 meter. Time for circuit of light > > is > > 10^-8 sec. Now do a fast turn. > > Let's assume 600 rpm, 10 rev per second. The passengers would all be DEAD! George, I am referring to the rotation of the aircraft ref the earth, which you claim to be able to "time" (the difference in a photon doing one rev of the attached sagnac machine) when the aircraft is proceeding straight, and comparing to the "time" of that photon doing one rev when the plane is changing direction- say 180degrees (half the circumference of the sagnac) per HOUR! Whatever your sagnac animation is doing, it is NOT comparing measured times of photon circuits. > > > How much did the 3m alter, > > 3m * 10^-8 = 300nm, or 10^-15 sec > > > and how good > > is the watch that differentiated between periods stable and rotating. > > Yellow light has a frequency of 5 * 10^14 Hz so 0.1 > of a fringe shift is 2 * 10^-16 sec. I have used > interferometers and worked to a tenth of a fringe by > eye without too much trouble. Electronics is far > better. > > > Hint; Your clocks (time) are trying to measure the difference between > > the flight of a photon over 3m, and 2.999999999999999999999999999m > > 3.0m versus 3.0000003m and we can measure to better > than 0.00000006m. > > > The time is NOT measured to change! We do not posses the technology to > > get anywhere near that accuracy. > > In fact the technology is much better than the example > given above. If you had read the web sites on iFOGs we > were talking about, the best can measure a few tens of > degrees per hour. They can measure the rotation of the > Earth with a bit of care once properly calibrated which > is about 100,000 times better than above in a box only > a few cm across! Ring lasers are even better. You don't > seem to realise just how powerful modern technology has > become. > > >>It is ASSUMED! > > So how does the commercial kit know how fast it > is rotating if we humans only assume it? Where > do the numbers on the dial come from Jim? Why > don't the planes fall out of the sky? Q: If the machine is set at 600rpm grounded, how many rpm is it doing when the airframe to which it is attached is doing 1rpm (Hint: either 601 or 599) > > >> As for your stuff on the galaxy and a merry-go-round, the > >> correct analogy is that you make the measurement not against > >> the horses head but using a gyroscope (or you could say a > >> distant mountain if you were on a non-rotating planet). > > > > Nope. Sirius IS the distant mountain as far as our markers for > > direction go. > > Wrong Jim, find out before speaking. Look up "ICRF" > and learn. In particular look up the defining source > details and find the average red shift (z factor). > > >> Astronomers are well aware of the local proper motion of > >> stars. That's why you need to learn how astronomy is done > >> before criticising. > > > > It will be 12 billion years before we know what is happening NOW at the > > limit of our present vision. Might as well shop local! > > > > BTW: Do YOU think it likely that the Milky Way has only revolved 60 > > times? > > It seems much more stable than that. > > Why do you think stability is related to the number > of turns? I can't see why you think there would be > a connection. > > Anyway, to add a bit of education, a galaxy isn't > rigid so stars at different radii have completed > different numbers of revolutions. The place is very > dynamic, the Sun was only created 4.6 billion years > ago and will die in a few more. The arms are shock > waves that move round at a different speed to the > stars in them, so saying "the Milky Way has only > revolved 60 times" is an oversimplification. What > I would say is that by using small radio sources > billions of light years away as a reference (the > 'mountain') we can now _measure_ the rotation of > the galaxy (around Sag A*) directly using VLBI, and > the value is the same as that obtained by measuring > the Doppler shift of other parts of the galaxy > relative to us. It's about 220 million years at > the distance we are from the centre (about 28kly) > and we also "bob up and down" through the plane > roughly every 80 million years IIRC. These are not > contentious figures Jim, I don't understand why you > are sceptical. So now the poor old sun has only managed 4.6 / .22 = 20 revs around the galaxy :-( .....hardly seems fair......... Jim
From: Henri Wilson on 8 Oct 2005 06:05 On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 04:00:04 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine <ewill(a)sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote: >In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson) ><H@> > wrote >>>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. > >Probably not, but both theories predict the same thing AFAICT. > >In any event, the Earth is moving around in a circle at a speed >of about 10^-4 c (or 30 km/s). And it is rotating with the galaxy > >> Anyway, the answer would be the value of the universal constant 'c'. > >For all four constants? How do you know the readings would be 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"? >> >> Somewhere between 10^-20 and 10^-100 kgm/m3 > >Hm...well, the density of interstellar space is estimated to >be 0.1-1000 atoms per cubic centimeter, which, if every atom >is a neutral hydrogen atom, translates into >1.673 * 10^-21 to 1.673 * 10^-17 kg/m^3. That's within the galaxy. Estimates are much smaller in intergalactic space. ....10^26 -10^-29 These are all guesses anyway. >http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/DaWeiCai.shtml > >This would suggest that a star the size of our sun (1.9862 * 10^30 kg) >would require a spherical volume of diameter 0.64 light years, at >this density, to form. (It's of course a lot smaller now, :-) but >still big enough to dominate the Solar System.) > >For the entire Universe, a report suggests 3 * 10^-27 kg/m^3: > >http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/universe_density_010307.html Just guesses really. If you want to use my redshift program to see how light is redshifted as it escapes a star or galaxy, you can plug in any density you like. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/redshift.exe > >[.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 8 Oct 2005 06:05 On 7 Oct 2005 23:15:50 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >Henri Wilson wrote: > >[snip] > >> >> >>>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 > >Haha what? > >You have a range thats spans 80 orders of magnitude. > >In other words, you have no idea. I'll let you in on a secret Geese...nor has anyone else. 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 8 Oct 2005 06:19 On Fri, 7 Oct 2005 23:34:40 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >news:lgpdk1p5mbj1dipuqa52n434e94li2hhtn(a)4ax.com... >>>> 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. George, let me explain. You are claiming that the speed component that a photon gains due to the movement of its source relative to an observer is c+v, where v is the speed of the observer relative to the source. In the rotating frame...which you love....the source's speed is at right angles to the first mirror. Its speed component towards the mirror 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. >>> >>>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. Just resort to LET and you will get the Einsteinian version. >> 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. Every component is moving normally wrt the next IN THE FRAME OF THE NEXT. The 'c' part remains c because the beam is not perfectly parallel. The bit that hits the centre of the mirror during rotation is not the same as when it is still. >>>>>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. Maxwell couldn't measure his two constants in a pure vacuum because the act of measuring would have disturbed the vacuum As Androcles says, the values of permitivity in completely empty space is zero. >>>> 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. Like Newton, he didn't have a chance to bring it up to date. I'm trying to do that for him. >> Axis rotation is not the same as polarization. > >Nor was it part of Ritz's theory so the >prediction remains null. Physics was pretty primative in 1907. It still is. > >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: donstockbauer on 8 Oct 2005 06:37
Physics was pretty primative in 1907. It still is. ************************** Amen. ********************** "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong". ************************ What did he do? Buy a losing lottery ticket? |