GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: George Dishman on 29 Aug 2007 17:12 "Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:ncmbd3pimq5gah564v6mcm1a8s7m6jco52(a)4ax.com... > 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. I can't help, I only saw a reference to the systems on a summary page with no links. > Interestingly both PSR 1257+12 and PSR 1534+12 are obserevd to be > binaries. I searched for "Cepheid" and "Shapiro" so it would only return binaries, just selection bias. > I suspect most pulsars are. Certainly for millisecond pulsars, they get spun up by accreting matter from a companion. > It all fits in with BaTh. Not really, they all show VDoppler only which is conventional theory. BaTh requires ADoppler and you are scrabbling for excuses to explain why it doesn't appear when you should be able to use them to prove it does exist. George
From: George Dishman on 29 Aug 2007 17:14 "Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:r0mbd354ggf3sdn4l9vdil56mm2bas9ij6(a)4ax.com... > 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.... Well ... you make enough such comments so I'm due one here and there. Anyway, I'm "de-mob happy", I finished work today for a fortnight's holiday, our first in two years due to family commitments. I'll be on the Isle of Skye all next week so don't expect to see much from me. George
From: Henri Wilson on 29 Aug 2007 17:12 On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 13:42:29 -0400, "T.M. Sommers" <tms(a)nj.net> wrote: >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. It's nice to know that Google is up to date with the latest scientific discoveries..... >> "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. ADoppler DOES exist. George merely wants it to go quietly away so his faith wont be threatened. I'll try to explain briefly. According to BaTh, (ballistic theory) ADoppler occurs like this. As light is emitted by an orbiting star, it moves at c wrt the star and c+v.sin(ft) wrt planet Earth. Over time, the fast photons catch up with the slower ones and vice versa causing a bunching or separation pattern across space. The process does not continue forever because the speed of all light moving in a particular direction tends to become unified. The arrival of the 'photon density' pattern over time causes the star to APPEAR to vary in brightness when in fact it is perfecty stable. Since the 'ends' of INDIVIDUAL photons are also emitted by the accelerating source, it was pointed out by George that these should also behave like the macroscopic bunching that occurs BETWEEN photons. This is just the classical wave theory, in which individual photons are regarded as being just small snippets of the whole wave. That is possible...and it answered a big question about the phase differences between the observed brightness and velocity curves of Cepheids. However, it was obvious that the photon 'length changes' could not be of the same order as the observed brightness variations. My theory says that photons DO contract and extend due to this source acceleration and these effects are roughly in phase with the macroscopic bunching...... BUT the changes are reduced markedly by a factor 'K', which may be of the order 10^-5. This appears logical because, whilst there appears to be NO restriction on the way aligned photons might move wrt each other, photons are likely to resist 'compression ' and extension like an conventional elastic material. >Thanks. 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 20:12 On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 22:12:26 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >news:ncmbd3pimq5gah564v6mcm1a8s7m6jco52(a)4ax.com... >> 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. > >I can't help, I only saw a reference to the systems >on a summary page with no links. > >> Interestingly both PSR 1257+12 and PSR 1534+12 are obserevd to be >> binaries. > >I searched for "Cepheid" and "Shapiro" so it would >only return binaries, just selection bias. > >> I suspect most pulsars are. > >Certainly for millisecond pulsars, they get spun >up by accreting matter from a companion. > >> It all fits in with BaTh. > >Not really, they all show VDoppler only which is >conventional theory. BaTh requires ADoppler and >you are scrabbling for excuses to explain why it >doesn't appear when you should be able to use them >to prove it does exist. Remember the 'spheres' 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 20:12
On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 18:09:16 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >"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 ....and by my photon model > >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. |