GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: T.M. Sommers on 29 Aug 2007 13:42 George Dishman wrote: > "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. That explains why Google returned only links to here. > "VDoppler" is short for Doppler resulting from > velocity, Okay. > it is the same as conventional first > order Doppler. Are there other orders? I don't recall ever running across any. > "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. Okay. Thanks. -- Thomas M. Sommers -- tms(a)nj.net -- AB2SB
From: George Dishman on 29 Aug 2007 16:08 "T.M. Sommers" <tms(a)nj.net> wrote in message news:46d5b005$0$26698$470ef3ce(a)news.pa.net... > George Dishman wrote: >> "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. > > That explains why Google returned only links to here. > >> "VDoppler" is short for Doppler resulting from >> velocity, > > Okay. > >> it is the same as conventional first >> order Doppler. > > Are there other orders? I don't recall ever running across any. Doppler for a wave in a medium with a fixed observer is: f'/f = 1/(1 + u/c) = 1 - (u/c) + (u/c)^2 + ... [1] where u is the speed of the source and c is the speed of the wave. For a fixed source and moving observer it becomes: f'/f = 1 - (u/c) [2] For light the equation is f'/f = (1 - u/c) / sqrt(1 - (u/c)^2) = 1 - (u/c) + 0.5 * (u/c)^2 + ... [3] where u is the relative motion of the source and observer. Note it is the geometric mean of the two previous formulae and you can get the relativistic formula by choosing an arbitrary frame and applying the relativistic time dilation equation to the classical Doppler version. When expanded the difference between all three is just a factor of 0, 1/2 or 1 multiplying the second order term. In this context speeds are always less than c/1000 so the second order term is 1000 times smaller than the first order and can be neglected for the discussion. You may see me sometimes remind Henry of the Ives and Stilwell experiment, they measured the second order term and found the SR value was correct thus directly confirming SR's prediction of time dilation. >> "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. > > Okay. > > Thanks. I hope you get something useful out of the thread, I try to squeeze in as much science as I can but it isn't easy to keep it at a level that Henry can follow. George
From: George Dishman on 29 Aug 2007 16:41 "Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:kmk6d3hl6m51ee5nelntmksqmh0hlj14c5(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 11:38:06 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >>news:0964d39tjr4cp4lpetdfmk8lbrf0fm3bcc(a)4ax.com... .... >>> Do you have a better description of what happens inside a microwav oven? >> >>You can use QED to analyse the behaviour of the >>photons but given the very large numbers involved >>(due to the small value of h) it is easier to >>treat the statistical averages. Farther down the >>postI explained the connection between photons and >>their averaged effect we describe as a field, and >>Maxwell's Equations characterise the relationships >>between those averages. Using Maxwell's Equations >>and the 'field' representation of the photon flow >>is the easier method. > > Now wait a miinute. > We have established that vigorous VHF AC fields are set up in the array of > cavities. Presumably, 'photons' are emitted by the rapidly accelerating > electrons in those cavities. ...and these find their way down the guide > into > the main cavity. > There is still not even the slightest inference that these photons possess > a > 'frequency' themselves. You seem to be changing subjects. The evidence that individual photons have an attribute related to frequency comes from their behaviour on hitting a grating, you and I covered that weeks ago. You seem to be conflating that with your discussion of magnetrons with Bob. >>>>> It is the arrival phase of the 'intrinsic photon oscillation' that is >>>>> subject >>>>> to probability. >>>> >>>>So where is the equation for that probability? >>> >>> Its general nature should be pretty obvious to any engineer. >> >>Maxwell's Equations are obvious to any engineer, >>but it took Maxwell to write them in the first >>place. Until you write them down in a form that >>others can use, you don't have a theory. > > The physics behind Maxwell's equations is pretty obvious and > simple....even if > the equations appear formidable. The point is that if you want to design a coil with a given inductance, you need an equation. Even if you understand the physics qualitatively, that won't tell you how many turns of what diameter and so on. The basis of all physics is that it is first and foremost qualitative and any philosophical "understanding" is extraneous. Until you publish the equations, nobody can put them to use and by definition that means you don't have a theory. >>> Here's an experiment. >>> Set up a vibrating wire. Move it towards a fixed point. Check the phase >>> of >>> the >>> wire's amplitude when it arrives. >>> Repeat 1000000 times. >>> Plot the histogram of arrival phase. >>> Use this data to predict how the 'wave' would diffract. >> >>That would not give you equations that could be >>used in general, and it remains a classical wave >>model. > > that's what I wanted. A particle model that includes classical waves. All > evidence points to photons behaving like that. Yes but you still don't have an equation so it isn't physics, just philosophical musings. There is a huge difference between a histogram of coil inductances falling of the end of a production line and the equations that allowed the designer to ensure that the mean value is what the customer ordered. >>>>> I have a physical model George. Nobody else has one. >>>> >>>>You have two equations, nothing more, and those >>>>don't work, they tell me the Sagnac experiment >>>>should give no shift. >>> >>> Sagnac requires that the rays move at c+/-v wrt the source. >>> Sagnac proves SR wrong. >> >>Wrong, SR predicts the difference in speed should >>be c+/-v so it is compatible with SR. Ballistic >>theory predicts no fringe shift so is falsified. > > Ah! You finally accept that the speeds are c+/-v.... No, the "difference in speed" is what I said. > Now maybe you will also accept my variable star theory...since it relies > on the > same principle. It doesn't, it relies on the difference being c and that isn't the value measured by Sagnac, your theory is measured to be wrong. >>>>Since the location is intrinsically random, all >>>>you can hope to find is what causes the statistical >>>>distribution to be what it is, but I'm not going to >>>>start discussing the philosophy of QM, take that to >>>>a particle physics group if you like. >>> >>> No george. The loctation is NOT random. >> >>Don't waste your time repeating dogma Henry, many >>QM tests have proved that it _is_ random and can >>_only_ be described statistically in real physics. >> >>> There was a perfectly sound and unique >>> physical reason why the arrow landed exactly where it did. >>> >>> You are talking stats. I am talking physics.... not philosophy. >> >>No, you are stating a religious belief, experiments >>show that the stats can be predicted mathematically, >>which is physics, but individual instances cannot. > > George, it is theoretically possible to precisely model an arrow's flight > through the air, taking into account such things as the initial aim, wind > direction and variation, air temperature, etc. No it isn't, it is only possible to predict it up to the accuracy permitted by the uncertainty principle. > That's how physicists try to model mechanical behavior. That's how 19th century physicists worked. Modern physicists know it is a valid approximation for macroscopic behaviour but most cutting edge work is pushing the quantum level. > Stats is a relatively new player in the physical arena. Sure, slightly less than a century. >>>> E = 1/q * dp/dt >>>> >>>>so if a stream of similar photons each carrying >>>>momentum P hit charge q at a mean rate of r >>>>photons per second, the field is: >>>> >>>> E = rP/q >>> >>> That's a big 'IF'. >> >>No, it is in the sense of "for example", not an >>"if" in the conditional sense at all. You also >>claim your theory is particulate so you should >>be agreeing with me. >> >>> You are attributing all the properties of 'fields' to photons. Do you >>> include >>> gravity and magnetism in this? >> >>No, you read to much into it, electric and magnetic >>fields obviously are described by photons as above. > > Hahahahohohohohha! Pardon? I thought it was obvious that photons relate to the EM forces? > George, PHOTONS are described by FIELDS, a la Maxwell. Photons are not dsescribed by fields, they are described by Schroedinger's Wave Equation and quantum mechanics. > How can FIELDS be > described by PHOTONS? E = rP/q > Is this just another example of circular relativist logic? No, it is another example of you not reading what was written. >>The same general comments are true for the weak >>nuclear force but the carrier particles in that >>case are the W+, W-, and Z bosons, not photons. >> >>The characteristics of the particle that would be >>needed to be the equivalent for gravity (the >>"graviton") can be calculated but its effects are >>too small to be detected yet. > > George, stop making up stories... Learn some modern physics Henry: http://www.particleadventure.org/ > Admit that nobody has a clue....except for me of course. ROFL, Henry you are only slightly less clueless than the other cranks around here, you cannot even cope with calculus never mind physics, and you only think you understand that because you confuse it with philosophy. >>>>> I don't feel at all enlightened by your reply. >>>> >>>>That doesn't surprise me at all, you seem incapable >>>>of learning anything, even accepted terminology. >>> >>> Physicists have traditionally been way ahead of engineers... >> >>You seem to be neither. > > More BOTH than Neither. Nope, neither. > Physicists can be engineers but engineers can't be physicists. Lucky I got my degree first then. >>> No, Planck and Kramer produced sound laws....ie., not based on >>> willusions. >> >>Exactly, and Cepheid models are built on those >>and other similar lab-based laws. > > But George, everyone still believes that light speed is unimportant in > astronomical observations and measurements...just as it is in the lab. Nonsense, as I have told you before, look at how the slope of a pulsar's dispersion can be used to determine the electron column density. It will tell you more than you think about speeds. > This is > not true and shows how primative and ignorant most humans are...even the > scientists. > > When relative light speed is included, as it should be, the whole picture > changes. Sure, you get predictions of multiple images of binaries and then have to invoke speed changing fairies to give yourself an excuse for why we don't see that phenomenon. >>>>The majority of Cepheid modelling is >>>>based on laws previously found from other fields >>>>and which themselves have been solidly confirmed >>>>in the lab and many other areas of science. >>> >>> Willusions don't occur in the lab...in fact they are virtually >>> negligible >>> o >>> Earth. >> >>Exactly, so the Cepheid acoustic models are >>robust. > > Are you under the impression that there are cepheids in your lab? Are you under the impression that Planck discovered the law for black body emmission by setting himself on fire? > ........maybe you will even find some under your bed george. Maybe you will learn how physics works one day, it seems as likely. >>>>Cepheid modelling did call into question the early >>>>numbers for He++ ionisation and when they were >>>>checked it was found that the astronomers were >>>>right which further supports the modelling. >>> >>> George, theories are usually considered 'right' if they come up with the >>> previously known answer....even if they are completely wrong. >> >>If they give the right answer, they are "right" by >>definition. > > George, I can easily 'fiddle' my above statistical diffraction theory to > match > the QM results, by introducing a few other likely factors. Would that make > it > correct in your mind? Nope, like your program you would prove you had nothing more than a curve fitting program. For real physics, the parameters cannot be fiddled because they have been derived from other experiments and the aim is always to eliminate as many unknowns as possible. That is why when the models predicted the wrong period for the in-phase bump, it called previous measurements into question, there simply wasn't a way to fiddle it to fit. >>>>The bottom line for you though is much simpler, you >>>>don't need to worry about building complete acoustic >>>>models of the stars. All you need to do is note >>>>certain aspects empirically. We know that the radius >>>>of the star changes so you need to take that into >>>>account in converting luminosity to brightness, and >>>>we know the temperature changes so you need to remove >>>>the resulting luminosity variation before using your >>>>program to fit what remains. >>> >>> George, we don't know much at all about the radius change, if any. >> >>We know quite precisely what it is, and the values >>given by other methods are now being confirmed >>directly by interferometry. If you want to try to >>provide a valid theory, you have to show you can >>predict the interferometric observations as well >>as the spectral line shift and luminosity. > > If one has enough faith, one will find evidence for it everywhere one > looks.... As you continually prove. However, the radius is directly measured and your theory says the measurement is valid. >>>>You can treat both those >>>>curves as empirical and subject to the 'willusion' >>>>effect caused by the variable time the light takes to >>>>reach us which distorts the orbital phase, but trying >>>>to do a fit without taking those factors into account >>>>is pointless, they are both much larger than any >>>>ballistic effect. >>> >>> Sorry, Not so George. >> >>Yes so Henry, you cannot get a valid fit for the >>ballistic element until you eliminate the effects >>of radius and temperature changes. That should be >>obvious to anyone and your denial of it says more >>about your state of mind than your technical >>understanding. > > My program can already almost do just that. > It makes provision for a 'tidal bulge', which effectively sinusoidally > varies > the size of the star twice per orbit.The brightness can also be varied > using > the Lum ratio combo box. > If I change this to make the bulge occur ONCE per orbit instead of twice, > it > will do what you want. You really are clueless at time, I am _not_ interested in your fiddle factors Henry, they only invalidate your results. The way to do it is to take the measured temperature curve and _calculate_ the luminosity variation that it produces using Planck's Law and then you have no factors to fiddle. That is physics, not your string of fudge factors. George
From: Henri Wilson on 29 Aug 2007 16:33 On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 21:08:31 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"T.M. Sommers" <tms(a)nj.net> wrote in message >news:46d5b005$0$26698$470ef3ce(a)news.pa.net... >> George Dishman wrote: >>> "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. >> >> That explains why Google returned only links to here. >> >>> "VDoppler" is short for Doppler resulting from >>> velocity, >> >> Okay. >> >>> it is the same as conventional first >>> order Doppler. >> >> Are there other orders? I don't recall ever running across any. > >Doppler for a wave in a medium with a fixed >observer is: > > f'/f = 1/(1 + u/c) > > = 1 - (u/c) + (u/c)^2 + ... [1] > >where u is the speed of the source and c is >the speed of the wave. For a fixed source >and moving observer it becomes: > > f'/f = 1 - (u/c) [2] > >For light the equation is > > f'/f = (1 - u/c) / sqrt(1 - (u/c)^2) > > = 1 - (u/c) + 0.5 * (u/c)^2 + ... [3] > >where u is the relative motion of the source >and observer. Note it is the geometric mean >of the two previous formulae and you can get >the relativistic formula by choosing an >arbitrary frame and applying the relativistic >time dilation equation to the classical Doppler >version. > >When expanded the difference between all three >is just a factor of 0, 1/2 or 1 multiplying >the second order term. > >In this context speeds are always less than >c/1000 so the second order term is 1000 times >smaller than the first order and can be >neglected for the discussion. > >You may see me sometimes remind Henry of the >Ives and Stilwell experiment, they measured >the second order term and found the SR value >was correct thus directly confirming SR's >prediction of time dilation. > >>> "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. >> >> Okay. >> >> Thanks. > >I hope you get something useful out of the >thread, I try to squeeze in as much science >as I can but it isn't easy to keep it at a >level that Henry can follow. very funny George.... >George > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter at least has a product to sell.
From: Henri Wilson on 29 Aug 2007 16:43
On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 00:45:50 -0700, George Dishman <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >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. I cannot find any curves but will keep looking. Interestingly both PSR 1257+12 and PSR 1534+12 are obserevd to be binaries. I suspect most pulsars are. It all fits in with BaTh. >George www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter at least has a product to sell. |