GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: Jerry on 8 Aug 2007 23:08 On Aug 8, 5:20 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote: > On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 11:48:58 -0700, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> > wrote: > > >On Aug 7, 4:46 am, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote: > >> On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 20:18:39 -0700, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> > >> wrote: > > >> >YOU wrote those words!!! > > >> Don't quote me out of context Crank. You left out the important > >> bits. > > >Well, well, now. ANOTHER prime example of your mendacity. I provide > >a precise quote and a precise link to the exact newsgroup message > >in which you made your statement, so as to make it easy for > >everybody to look up the the quote and the context in which it > >was made, and you accuse me of attempting to distort your words? > > >Naturally, of course, you selectively deleted the link so as > >to attempt to hide the fact that I provided one. > > >> I was merely pointing out that distance and period are complemetary > >> in the program. > > >Henri, if you haven't noticed, your program is your only > >definitive expression of your theory. All else is handwaving. > >Extinction distance and period are indeed tightly coupled in > >your program/theory for no known reason other than that is what > >you need in order to make your curve fits work. > > Sorry Crank, it is a plain mathematical fact. > You might resort to deviousness and lies but I don't have to. I could nearly triple the number of items in my sig, you know... > >> So are distance and velocity. > > >> If both the period and distance are multipied by the same > >> factor, the same curve results. > > >Exactly. A short period REQUIRES a short extinction distance, > >otherwise multiple images result. A long period REQUIRES a long > >extinction distance, otherwise you can't match the curves. > > I will try to explain Crank. > > Say I produce a certain brightness curve with a magnitude change of 1, using > maximum velocity 0.0001c, a distance 120LY and a period 0.4 years. > > Doubling the distance or velocity or halving the period will produce the same > result... an increase in magnitude change to about 4. > > There seems to be a problem here because it suggests that extinction distance > must vary with period. This is explained below. > > The process of extinction (light speed unification) occurs in two separate > stages, which we will call 'local' and 'cosmic'. > Around every mass, there exists an 'EM control sphere' that in some way affects > the speed of EM in its region. "In some way", i.e. you are invoking fairies. > This should not be likened to a gaseous > atmosphere although that might make up part of it. There are probably many > factors involved, eg., gravity fields and things we currently know nothing > about. More fairies. > Local extinction is much stronger than cosmic. > > As roughly shown in my demohttp://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/emspheres.exe > the local sphere around a star will move with that star if the star's orbit or > pulsation period is sufficiently long. All light emitted by that star will end > up traveling at about c relative to the sphere, which is itself experiencing > similar orbiting or pulsating. > > For shorter orbit periods, the sphere's movement lags that of the star and is > reduced in size. A very small period or the presence of a close companion will > cause the movement of the sphere (or common spheres) to almost cease. All light > leaving the vicinity will move at c plus the proper speed of the star or > barycentre. > > A separate process causes the wavelength of accelerated light to change > according to the normal doppler equation...so light emerging from a steady > sphere will STILL contain the VDoppler shifts of its sources. Hence, for > contact binaries, fast cepheids and probably pulsars, the observed spectral > shift DO contain fairly true information about radial source speeds and > thermal line broadening. > > For longer period cepheids, ADoppler will prevail. A distant observer will see > similar brightness and velocity curves. The latter may lag in phase due to both > the physical movement of the sphere and a small VDoppler contribution. The > velocity variation will be considerably less than that of the luminosity due to > my 'K' factor. The K factor having been invented solely to wriggle out of a MASSIVE DISCREPANCY between BaTh theory and observation... > Get it now? Yes. BaTh is filled with ad hoc, completely unjustified kludges that invoke fairy dust to explain away its false predictions. > >If you will look once more at your earlier post, you -delighted- > >in pointing out this fact to George, as if it were some sort of > >wonderful discovery of yours, and you challenged George to come > >up with an explanation. > > >"Well I can telll you one thing. The extinction distance is > >directly proportional to period. The 0.0007 value is for a period > >of 0.0042 years. It becomes 0.007 for 0.042 years, 0.07 for 0.042 > >years..etc....always independent of peripheral velocity. > >How can you explain THAT?" > >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/d032fc3a07d... > > >Far from being a wonderful discovery, this relationship is > >merely one of -many- Achilles' Heels that your theory suffers > >from. > > >What conceivable physical mechanism do you propose to explain this > >strong coupling between period and extinction distance? Does > >the orbiting of stars alter the very properties of space out to > >a distance of several light-days? > > >> If the maximum velocity is increased, reducing the distance by > >> the same factor gives the original result....well, almost at > >> short distances.. > > >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/d032fc3a07d... > > >> When somebody has to snip in order to change the meaning, it > >> is obvious they are beaten. > > >In that case, you have repeatedly lost. > > I hope this shut you up for a while Crank...but I doubt if you will be able to > understand what I wrote. Oh, I understand all right. Your theory is a maze of ad hoc kludges, and you are a deluded individual. Jerry Henri Wilson's Lies: A Sampling (1)Fakes Diploma (2)Uses Deceptive Language (3)Fakes Program (4)Intentionally Misquotes (5)Snips (6)Accuses Others of Lying 1 http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/diploma.htm 2 http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/deception.htm 3 http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/rt_aurigae.htm 4 http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/history.htm 5 http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/snips.htm 6 http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/accuses.htm
From: George Dishman on 9 Aug 2007 03:30 "Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:1tdkb35gc07k9bp0s6gg30237su7a2pub2(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 11:48:58 -0700, Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> > wrote: .... > > I will try to explain Crank. Jerry is not "Crank". > Say I produce a certain brightness curve with a magnitude change of 1, > using > maximum velocity 0.0001c, a distance 120LY and a period 0.4 years. > > Doubling the distance or velocity or halving the period will produce the > same > result... Not true. If you double the distance and halve the velocity then the ADoppler term stays the same but the VDoppler term is halved (since it depends on velocity but is independent of distance) so both the shape and phase of the curve will alter. George
From: George Dishman on 9 Aug 2007 03:59 "Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:iupcb3p0d72scb6sqb94peuima6m7f8tiq(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 4 Aug 2007 18:02:53 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >>news:0jd7b31i2ov9ql32vjg4e9c73mr57r30vr(a)4ax.com... >>> On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 15:55:17 +0100, "George Dishman" >>> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: <context restored> >>>>> Sagnac is however still quite a mystery. The standard explanation is >>>>> nothing >>>>> but the aether one in that it requires the existence of an absolute >>>>> nonrotating >>>>> frame. I think MY explanation (the 'arrow shaft' theory) might be the >>>>> correct >>>>> one. >>>> >>>>Henry, think of the Olympics. You see a javelin thrown >>>>and apart from some slight asymmetry, you cannot tell >>>>it is spinning as it flies. You explanation is that >>>>this spin changes in some way (though the javelin >>>>always points along the flight path) and that is >>>>supposed to somehow explain why two javelins thrown >>>>with exactly the same speed and following the same path >>>>but in the opposite direction can hit the ground at >>>>different times. It makes no sense at all even as an >>>>analogy. Both throwers get speared by the other's >>>>javelin, but one gets hit before the other? >>> >>> You are again very confused George. >>> I am not talking about spin but 'twist'. >> >>Whatever you call it, the spin of a photon is similar >>to that of the javelin but with the proviso that it >>is always xactly aligned with the direction of motion. >>The quantisation of photon spin only allows two values >>which can be thought of as the javelin spinning either >>clockwise or anti-clockwise as seen by the thrower. > > The shaft isn't spinning George. Photons carry angular momentum Henry. > I am taking about the angle between the shaft and the direction of motion. The angular momentum is quantised and the vector is parallel to the direction of propagation. However, none of that explains how a change of spin, or even a twist, changes the time taken for two javelins to travel the same distance to be different. That is what happens in the Sagnac experiment, photons sent in opposite directions round the ring do not arrive at the detector simultaneously. .... >>No, like you Sean thinks the light is launched at c >>relative to the cource, not c+v, but he then thinks >>that, as the source moves in a circle, the photons >>move as if sliding along a rod locked to the source >>so their path through space becomes something between >>a cycloid and a sine wave like this: >> >> http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Sean/Sean_Planets.html >> >>If he can't see how illogical that is, there's nothing I >>can say to straighten him out. Maybe you could try since >>he claims to be supporting ballistic theory, except that >>he thought he invented it of course ;-) > > That's not my interpretation. No, it's Sean's. George
From: George Dishman on 9 Aug 2007 04:16 "Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:rkocb3l62ps3fufdcv2mlpk6a9opupv58r(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 4 Aug 2007 17:51:26 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >>news:6712b393gdfkbo7o881ksor76trke7hp4n(a)4ax.com... >>> On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 00:18:17 -0700, George Dishman >>> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >>>>The standard explanation doesn't use the frame >>>>of the source at all. >>> >>> Nor am I using the frame of the source. >> >>Yes you are you just said "c+/-v wrt the source". Try >>to ficus Henry, you can't remember what you said from >>one line to the next. >> >>> I AM SAYING THAT IN THE LAB FRAME THE RAYS ARE MOVING AT C+/-V WRT THE >>> SOURCE.... >> >>And that simply demonstrates your complete lack of >>any understanding of even the terminology. The words >>"IN THE LAB FRAME" mean numbers taken from a coordinate >>system whose origin is fixed in the lab withing which >>the source moves in a circle. "WRT THE SOURCE" means >>numbers in a coordinate system whose origin is fixed >>on the source and in which every point in the lab >>moves in a circle. > > ...yes, it's just like trying to teach a monkey how to play the fiddle.... You're right, I should stop trying, but let's have one last attempt. >>> AND THE SR EXPLANATION RELIES ON THAT FACT. > >>>> >>>>Of courseI deny it, and so would you if you had any idea >>>>about SR. >>> >>> George, I will ask you again in order that you might be able to rescue >>> at >>> least >>> some of your reputation here. >>> >>> In the lab frame, are the rays seen to be moving at c+/-v wrt the >>> source? >> >>You are just repeating a self-contradictory question >>that shows you don't know what "frame" and "wrt" mean. > > Answer the question George. The question is self-contradictory so has to be split: a) In the lab frame, the rays are seen to be moving at c. b) In the source frame ("wrt the source"), the rays would be seen to be moving at c. c) In the lab frame, the difference between the speed of the rays and the speed of the source is c+/-v. Which of those three answers do you wish to dispute? >>> However, that is NOT what the SR sagnac analysis says at all. >> >>Sorry to disappoint you. Take the fact that SR says >>the light moves at c in the lab frame. Use the Lorentz >>Transforms (as required by SR) to convert to the >>momentarily co-moving inertial source frame and you >>will find the result is c, not c+/-v. It is schoolboy >>maths Henry, you will find it in every textbook on the >>subject. > > You are compleely missing the point as usual. > WHAT YOU SAID ABOVE IS IRRELEVANT. THE FRAME YOU WANT TO USE IS NOT AN > ISSUE. Yes it is Henry, because your single question includes two frames. You can't even ask a sensible question. >>> It clearly shows >>> the rays moving at c+/-v wrt that 'comoving frame. >>> >>> You obviously don't even understand your own theory. >> >>I can do the maths, you hav to stab in the dark. You >>got it wrong. > > YOU are in the wrong frame. There is no such thing as a "wrong frame", it is merely the coordinate scheme you have chosen. You still don't know what a frame is. >>>>> >You have been told many times what the difference >>>>> >is but you insist on using the term to refer to your >>>>> >aether instead. I warned you it would only confuse >>>>> >you and here you see the proof. >>>>> >>>>> I'm not confused. >>>> >>>>If you think light moves at c+/-v in any inertial frame >>>>according to SR then you are hopelessly confused. >>> >>> That is NOT what I am saying. >>> Read it again. >> >>Here are some relevant excerpts from your posts for >>you to read again: >> >>"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >>news:6f8aa3pu62v3bjbei4sc10uou7pkao5j5f(a)4ax.com... >>... >>> In the inertial (nonrotating) frame, the SR Sagnac explanation >>> specifically >>> requires that the rays move at c+v wrt the source. > > That is correct. That is what the diagram shows. > > >>> George, have another look atthe standard SR explanation of Sagnac, >>> It relies on the two rays traveling at c+/-v wrt the source. ... >>... >>> George, do you deny that in the inertial non-rotating frame, the rays >>> move >>> at >>> c+/-v wrt the source? >>... >>> No transformations are required to see that the rays move at c+/-v wrt >>> the >>> source, according to SR. >> >>It is exactly what you have been saying. > > why should it not be? Read what you said again: >>> That is NOT what I am saying. >>> Read it again. You tell me. >>> George, your use of the 'comoving frame' was just an attempt to look >>> knowledgeable and evade the question. >> >>The answer to the question is that you are wrong, the >>speed in the momentarily co-moving inertial frame >>("wrt the source" as you put it) is c, not c+v, and >>that is true in both ballistic theory and SR. If you >>want to continue making a fool of yourself by showing >>that you do not understand basic technical terms, feel >>free to carry on, and I will continue to laugh at you. > > George, what hapened to my question about the two cars. I answered it in a reply to that post. > If you are a bystander, is it or is it NOT legitimate for you to measure > an > quote the speed of one car wrt the other? Not. You can only measure the speed of the cars relative to your measuring instruments. You can then _calculate_ the speed of one car wrt the other, which is effectively predicting wat would be measured if your instrument were in one of the cars measuring the speed of the other, but that is a calculation that requires a coordinate transform so differs between theories. > Whether or not that is the same answer one of the drivers would come up > with is > a completely irrelevant. Not at all, it is a _prediction_ of what the driver would _measure_ if he had your instrument in the car with him. That's what the words "with respect to" mean, they say you are using that object as the origin of the measurement coordinate system. If I ask "where is Chicago with respect to Washington?" you could give me distances west and north using Washington as the origin of those numbers. Do you get it yet? George
From: Jerry on 9 Aug 2007 07:10
On Aug 9, 2:30 am, "George Dishman" <geo...(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > "Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message > > news:1tdkb35gc07k9bp0s6gg30237su7a2pub2(a)4ax.com... > > > On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 11:48:58 -0700, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> > > wrote: > ... > > > I will try to explain Crank. > > Jerry is not "Crank". We share the same last name, so technically Henri is correct! ;-) Jerry |