GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: George Dishman on 29 Aug 2007 03:30 Henri Wilson wrote: > On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 05:16:19 -0700, George Dishman <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >Henri Wilson wrote: > >> On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 14:12:05 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >> >"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:b6b1d3p5p0n7bvbp584bbgo01nehsr1pug(a)4ax.com... > >> >>> > >> >>>Right, nice to see you admit it. > >> >>> > >> >>>> for a constant a. > >> >>> > >> >>>No. It is for the value of a at that point, just > >> >>>as the 'v' in the equation is the value of the > >> >>>velocity at that point. For any other point, v, > >> >>>a, and even the distance have different values > >> >>>but the equation holds good for each point. > >> >> > >> >> It might... > >> > > >> >It does, it is simple schoolboy calculus as > >> >you said. > >> > > >> >> but it doesn't achieve much. It turns out that when an orbit is > >> >> considered, the phasing of maximum ADoppler depends on distance... > >> > > >> >You know the equation I get: > >> > > >> > f_r/f_t = c(c+v)/(c^2-da) > >> > > >> >so distance is in the demonimator. > >> > > >> >> and NOT due > >> >> to the VDoppler contribution. > >> > > >> >The (c+v) term in the numerator takes care of VDoppler. > >> > >> Sure.... > > > >Thank again, you are finally getting to the point > >where you will admit my equation is correct. > > It might be correct ... It is right. > but it's just kid's stuff.... Sure, the application of balistic theory to binary systems is just kid's stuff. > >> but you are only considering one point. > > > >Yes Henry, that's how people write equations, it > >is general and applies to any single point. > > Now try applying it generally George. Don't forget to include yaw angle, > eccentricity and observer distance You forget I already did that part: http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Henri/Ritz_Binary.html It took a couple of hours mainly getting the sizes of the controls right, the maths of the orbit is one line. > as well as source velocity versus time. > > I wish you well. All the equatons need are on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler's_laws_of_planetary_motion apart from the acceleration which is GM/r^2 of course. I didn't bother typing them in because th conversation went past the point where they would have been useful. > >> I'm talking about the complete luminosity curve > >> over a whole orbit...of any eccentricity and yaw angle.. > >> The shape depends on da/dt and the emission delay as well as observer distance. > > > >You are just trying to back-pedal to cover up the fact > >that I am right, the term da/dt does not affect the > >luminosity and should not appear in the equation > >for it. > > George, you are just skimming the surface. It's all fairly trivial but for stars with fixed absolute luminosity (i.e. not intrinsically variable) the solution is straightforward. > >> >> In my program, I replace 'a' with finite values of deltaV at equi-spaced > >> >> (timewise) points around the orbit, then observe the way the 'bunching > >> >> factor' > >> >> varies with time at the observer distance.. > >> > > >> >Sure, now define > >> > > >> > deltaV = a * dt > >> > > >> >and you should reproduce my equation. > >> > >> You equation is just a starting point. > > > >Yes, but it is complete for what it seeks to achieve. > > It tells you the total doppler shift at a particular distance in terms of a > single source velocity AND acceleration...or it would EXCEPT FOR ONE THING. THE > FACTOR K. K=1, but if you want to include it, you need to write down the modified version of the above equation including K. I can't do that because it is a factor that doesn't come out of the physics, it is an ad hoc extra you have decided to add so only you can say where it goes. What you _should_ do is define it physically and then derive the modified equation from that definition, but you haven't got the maths ability to do that so try plucking an equation out of the air. Bottom line - until you provide an equation containing K, there is no K in your theory. > >It is a tool which you then apply to the particular > >circumstances. That means you work out your > >own equations to define the motion of the source > >and then apply mine to find the effect on the > >surface brightness due to ballistic theory. You > >also need to use other laws to find the effect of > >area changes and temperature as we said before > >to find the total luminosity change. > > Give up George. This is way beyond you. Sorry Henry, my equation is complete and correct, your arrogance is just sour grapes because you couldn't work it out and have spent years trying to write a simulation to do it for you. > My advice is that you should try to master my very comprehensive program and > make suggestions with regard to how it might be refined. I have repeatedly - add a curve showing the predicted observed velocity instead of your bodge of using the true velocity with arrival time distortion, it is only half the story and doesn't correspond to either the true or observed values. Add in a true distance curve which will be equivalent to the radius curve for a Cepheid, and most importantly add scales to all your graphs. > >> >> George, you do it your way. I'll do it mine. > >> >> > >> >> We can meet up in 1000000 years when you finish. > >> > > >> >I have finished, the answer is the equation > >> >shown above. To apply that to a binary system, > >> >use Kepler's equations to find the location > >> >and velocity and Newton's equation for gravity > >> >to find the acceleration and just plug them into > >> >my equation to get the observed values. > >> > >> Simple isn't it...why don't you do it then George? > > > >Because ballistic theory is proven wrong and I feel > >no need to waste my time any farther. > > BaTh has never been proven wrong. Sagnac, Shapiro, Ives and Stillwell, all prove it wrong. > All evidence points to it being correct... There isn't a single experiment where ballistic theory is right other than those where it gives the same prediction as SR, e.g. the MMx. > at least in 'empty' space. > My program uses the same principle that SR relies on to explain Sagnac. Liar. > >The suggestion > >that Cepheids were unvarying stars in Keplerian orbits > >is simple to simulate but since they are actually what > >you describe as "huff-puff" stars, there would be a lot > >of work to do to take account of temperature variation > >in particular. All it would do is show that the conventional > >theory accounts for all the observed change so the whole > >excercise would be pointless. > > It turns out that the temperaturre curve should be approximately in phase with > the BaTh brightness curve....so it shouldn't make much difference even if it > does occur. Planck's Law says it is the major cause of the luminosity variation V band, close to a factor of 2 for L Car. > >I had intended to do it for the Keplerian case to deal > >with the pulsars but you finally realised that the Shapiro > >delay provided the orbital phase reference and that the > >pulses were subject to VDoppler only. We have a saying > >over here - charging an open door. It is a waste of effort > >trying to convince someone ofsomething they have already > >accepted, so there was no longer a need for me to spend > >the time. > > I didn't need the 'shapiro delay' to tell me that George. > I have a perfectly sound explanation as to why some stars and pulsars exhibit > only VDoppler. All stars Henry, all. > >> >For a > >> >Cepheid, you need either the acoustic model > >> >for true velocity (or calculate back by fitting > >> >an observed velocity) and use the derivative of > >> >the true velocity for the acceleration. For a > >> >laser bounched off a mirror glued to a > >> >loudspeaker, you need to differentiate the audio > >> >waveform to get the cone position, speed and > >> >acceleration. My equation is entirely general. > >> > >> ..and entirely inadequate.... > > > >No Henry, it is entirely adequate. It is a tool and > >it is _your_ job to wield it, not mine. > > George, my pogram includes two independent methods of producing star curves. > One is based on YOUR equation. It produces the same curves as my other method. Thanks for confirming my equation. > So instead of arguing you should be trying to apply it generally...just as I > have done. You haven't, your predicted curve for observed velocity (i.e. spectral shift) doesn't use it and is wrong. > >> >Now we are looking > >> >at Cepheids and we have seen that again the spectral > >> >shift is only VDoppler and that the variable radius > >> >and temperature fully account for the luminosity so > >> >there appears to be no ADoppler there either. The > >> >whole of astronomy remains unchanged. > >> > >> George, we certainly have NOT seen that. > >> Published temperature curves have entirely the wrong charactristics for one > >> thing. > > > >The published temperature curves are as OBSERVED, > >and ballistic theory doesn't change the conversion > >from multi-band luminosity to temperature because > >both VDoppler and ADopler apply equally to the bands > >so the temperature values remain valid. > > ADoppler has the potential to shift a whole Planck curve sideways and give an > entirely whole impression of the true temperatue of the star. Yep, but since we know the shift is only 0.01% and the filters are orders of magnitude wider, it affects the temperature determination by at most a few degrees in ~6000K, it is negligible in practice so the temperature values remain valid. > >> >In fact the only effect we found at all was in the > >> >Shapiro effect and that confirms GR and falsifies > >> >ballistic theory so tough luck, "BaTh loses again" > >> >to use your phrase. > >> > >> I have provided a perfectly sound theory to explain the Shapiro delay in BaTh. > > > >No you haven't you waved your hands and got it wrong. > >Radiation pressure doesn't affect light and for a > >spacecraft on the far side of Jupiter, it would act in the > >wrong direction anyway, the change would make the > >arrival time even earlier than that due to the gravitational > >effect. It doesn't solve the problem, it makes it worse. > > Wrong George. It would make the average speed less than c. Think about it instead of giving a knee-jerk Henry: ===== Sun Jupiter craft ===== X Y Earth The signal from the craft passes close to the surface of Jupiter and is in the Sun's shadow from emission until point X. Without the planet is would be slowed by the solar radistion pressure, because it is in the shadow it isn't slowed so arrives earlier. From X to Y the effect of the sunlight is unchanged but light reflected from Jupiter would push the signal towards Earth so again it arrives earlier than it would otherwise do due to the presence of the planet. > A radar pulse fired at Venus when it between Earth and Sun takes lomger than > one when the planet is in the opposite direction. > > ...and I'm not just talking about 'radiation pressure'. I'm sugesting forces > unknown....maybe associated with the gravity field. Gravity is what caused your problem in the first place, it accelerates the light between the craft and point X and slows it between X and Y so the speed ends up the same but the signal has moved ahead and arrives early. Anyway there is no point in wittering about "forces unknown", we are talking science so we are talking about nothing more than what ballistic theory predicts. It says the light will arrive early when in fact it arrives late and the suggestion of radiation pressure makes the problem worse, it isn't a solution. > >> BaTh also matches the curves of at least ONE pulsar. > > > >It matched all the ones we checked that had detectable > >Shapiro delays or an eclipse as long as you have the > >speed equalisation so short that there is no ADoppler. > >(Without an orbital phase reference you cannot reach an > >unambiguous conclusion.) > > That's not true. The curve of PSR1913+16 is mainly an ADoppler one. Not true, the orbit is far from edge on so there is no detectable Shapiro delay or eclipse AFAIK which means you cannot distinguish VDoppler from ADoppler. If you know of an orbita reference, we can revisit it of course, but from memory I thought it was you who told me it was VDoppler. I could be wrong on that though. it's a few months since we discussed it briefly. George
From: George Dishman on 29 Aug 2007 03:45 Henri Wilson wrote: > On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 05:16:19 -0700, George Dishman <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >Henri Wilson wrote: .... > >> BaTh also matches the curves of at least ONE pulsar. > > > >It matched all the ones we checked that had detectable > >Shapiro delays or an eclipse as long as you have the > >speed equalisation so short that there is no ADoppler. > >(Without an orbital phase reference you cannot reach an > >unambiguous conclusion.) > > That's not true. The curve of PSR1913+16 is mainly an ADoppler one. As I said in my earlier reply, that system has no orbital phase reference so doesn't distinguish between VDoppler and ADoppler. If you want to try some extra examples, a Shapiro delay reference is available for PSR 1534+12 and PSR 1855+09 so you could have a look for curves for those systems. George
From: T.M. Sommers on 29 Aug 2007 09:36 George Dishman wrote: > > you cannot distinguish VDoppler from ADoppler. Excuse my ignorance, but what are VDoppler and ADoppler? -- Thomas M. Sommers -- tms(a)nj.net -- AB2SB
From: George Dishman on 29 Aug 2007 13:06 "T.M. Sommers" <tms(a)nj.net> wrote in message news:46d57675$0$26719$470ef3ce(a)news.pa.net... > George Dishman wrote: >> >> you cannot distinguish VDoppler from ADoppler. > > Excuse my ignorance, but what are VDoppler and ADoppler? Terms invented solely for this conversation. "VDoppler" is short for Doppler resulting from velocity, it is the same as conventional first order Doppler. "ADoppler" doesn't really exist. It means a frequency shift resulting from acceleration and would occur in Ritz's ballistic theory of light to which Henry subscribes. It results from, for example, pulses from a pulsar catching up with earlier ones if the later ones are emitted at higher speed due to acceleration of the source. Ritz's theory said the light would move at the vector sum of c plus the velocity of the source at the time of emission. HTH George
From: George Dishman on 29 Aug 2007 13:09
"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:hbb9d31bda3luahsig3s7pb9d2q87cah2s(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 04:43:06 -0700, George Dishman > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>Henri Wilson wrote: >>> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 11:46:56 +0100, "George Dishman" >>> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>> >"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >>> >news:aq54d3tovsrqebv16f0qtk9uej8haoohjh(a)4ax.com... .... >>> >> George assures us that all photon behavior can be explained with >>> >> classical >>> >> wave theory. >>> > >>> >Wrong way round Henry, I say all wave characteristics >>> >can be explained by QED. There are many quantum effects >>> >that can only be explained using the particulate model. >>> >>> Changed your mind again, eh, George? >> >>No, just correcting another of your lies. See my posts to >>both Sean and Jan Panteltje regarding the photo-electric >>effect. > > I was beginning to think you weren't aware of the P.E effect. Perhaps you weren't following those conversations, but you are certainly aware that I gave you links to a video and stills of single-photon experiments when we were discussing gratings and you know I have repeatedly pointed out that individual photons are deflected by the same angle from a grating as predicted by the classical wave analysis. George |