GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: George Dishman on 30 Aug 2007 03:18 "Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:rs1cd3hh01s0olae1smqq5vuioqflqf23j(a)4ax.com... > 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 Your equations don't even describe a repetitive phenomenon so there is no wavelength in them. Maxwell's Equation are second order differential so a sine wave is a solution but it propagates at a specific speed determined by the coefficients and independent of the speed of the source. A sine wave with source-dependent speed cannot be described that way so you have a major task in finding a formulation for that. I don't think Ritz ever did it either. Anyway, that's an aside, you don't know enough maths to even attempt that part. All you need to remember is that individual photons are deflected by a grating by the same angle as the macroscopic wave. George
From: Henri Wilson on 30 Aug 2007 18:51 On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 00:30:07 -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: >> >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. Then so is your SR Sagnac analysis...because it relies on exactly the same principle. >> >> 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. It looks impressive but I can't get it to run. I can change the orbit parameters, but nothing happens on 'play'. It doesn't say what anything is. >> 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 originally considered using Kepler's equations but devised a much easier and more efficient way to do it. >> >> 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. yes, I have been producing star curves for quite some time now. >> >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. George, I have already calculated one value of K for you. It was ~5E-5 >> >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. George, my simulations are accurate. They also match most star curves. >> 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. Hahaha. George the small radius change (if any) makes absolutely no difference to the observer distance. >> BaTh has never been proven wrong. > >Sagnac, Shapiro, Ives and Stillwell, all prove it >wrong. well how come your Sagnac analysis relies on the same principle I use to produce brightness curves? >> 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. George, why do you think TWLS is dead constant? >> at least in 'empty' space. >> My program uses the same principle that SR relies on to explain Sagnac. > >Liar. Don't deny it George. You finallly admitted that the 'closing velocities' of the rays are c+/-v wrt the source in sagnac. That's exactly what I use.... CLOSING VELOCITIES OF C+V. >> >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. ...and ADoppler could easily account for that. >> 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. Hahaha! You will go down fighting till the end .... What about all those supposed eclipsing stars that aren't eclipsing at all? Many are just orbiting stars with eccentricity around 0.5 and their perihelions closest to Earth. >> >> >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. It doesn't use your equation directly. Rather it uses the velocity difference at two finitely separated points and repeats the calculation around the whole orbit.. >> 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. George, the predicted OBSERVED velocity curve in similar to the observed LUM curve....but maybe slightly out of phase and much smaller in proportional change. >> >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. If those figures are true then the temperature cannot be determine accurately at all. >> >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. That's pathetic George. > >> 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. That would be the case..but there is another stronger 'force' operating in the opposite direction. >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. George, radar to Venus takes longer when he planet is aligned between us and the sun than when it is in the opposite side. That is perfectly consistent with my theory of 'solar wind'...which includes factors as yet unknown. >> >> 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. It doesnt have to be edge on. ALL possible orbits can be rotated around an axis perpendicular to the LOS to make them edge on...in which case ALL the velocites and accelerations around the whole orbit are multiplied by the same factor sec(pitch) >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 30 Aug 2007 18:54 On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 08:14:11 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >news:gp1cd31i8hehnki3ir7ab75hkidhqfd3gg(a)4ax.com... >> On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 22:14:49 +0100, "George Dishman" >> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>>"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >>>news:r0mbd354ggf3sdn4l9vdil56mm2bas9ij6(a)4ax.com... >... >> .. 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. >> >> That'll be a relief. >> I hope you spend many sleepless hours worrying about the fact that you >> know I'm >> right. > >Sorry Henry, I'll just chuckle any time the >conversation crosses my mind. It is amusing >seeing you attempt to claim success when all >you can do is make excuses for why Ritz's >theory fails. No matter how good the excuses, >the equations you offer are unusable because >they always give predictions that are at odds >with reality. Dream on George. Have a good holiday.... Every day is a holiday here. >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 30 Aug 2007 18:56 On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 08:09:45 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >news:3o1cd3dqv4ruios7s0n9n190gl88bou3cm(a)4ax.com... >> 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... >... >>>> 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... > >Yes Henry, a perfect example. You don't offer an >equation that solves the problem, you just invent >a hand-waving term to try to cover up the fact >that your theory fails. Excuse or not, the theory >still gives the wrong prediction. Equations must always be preceded by concepts 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 30 Aug 2007 19:02
On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 08:18:38 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >news:rs1cd3hh01s0olae1smqq5vuioqflqf23j(a)4ax.com... >> On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 18:09:16 +0100, "George Dishman" >>>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 > >Your equations don't even describe a repetitive >phenomenon so there is no wavelength in them. >Maxwell's Equation are second order differential >so a sine wave is a solution but it propagates at >a specific speed determined by the coefficients >and independent of the speed of the source. A >sine wave with source-dependent speed cannot be >described that way so you have a major task in >finding a formulation for that. I don't think >Ritz ever did it either. A photon is not 'a sine wave moving through space'. A sine wave is a convenient way of representing the field variations.se: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/e-field.exe >Anyway, that's an aside, you don't know enough >maths to even attempt that part. All you need to >remember is that individual photons are deflected >by a grating by the same angle as the macroscopic >wave. > >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. |