GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: bz on 30 Aug 2007 18:55 sean <jaymoseley(a)hotmail.com> wrote in news:1188512224.511353.237820 @i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com: > If you bothered analysing your sean planets sim, youd > see that its the only way to have light propagating away > from any source at c. One of the most fundamental laws of physics is that an object in motion continues in that motion unless acted upon by an outside force. The light emitted consists of 'objects'. Once emitted, they must travel in straight lines at a constant velocity unless acted upon by an outside force. What force would 'tie' the light, once emitted, to the source so that it must follow the source? There is no evidence of any such 'tie' between light, once emitted, and its source. In a cyclotron, particles traveling around a circular path emit beams of xrays. Those xrays travel in straight lines from the point of emission. They do NOT follow, in any way, the subsequent motion of the emitting particle. >> > And one way to test this would be to put a small MMx setup >> > onto a rotating table in a lab. And rotate that setup in >> > a circle in the lab. If this was tried then either >> > the small MMx setup wouldnt give a null result, in which case >> > you could say that yes light doesnt travel at c relative to a source >> > OR... >> > The rotating MMx setup WOULD still give a null result. In which case >> > I could say to you... light does always travel at c relative to a >> > source. >> > I bet the results would confirm my argument and refute yours. >> >> The result would be that the centrifugal force >> would distort the arms and wreck the experiment, >> you need to find a more practical method. > Do you really think a setup like this > rotating around a table at lets say once per 5 seconds would > break apart??? He did NOT say 'break apart', he said 'distort'. In the MMX, all it takes is moving part of the apparatus by a small fraction of the wavelength of light in order to create a detectable indication. THAT is why he said 'distort'. Spinning the apparatus would cause changes in the instrument that would make it useless for the purpose you propose to use it for. -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+spr(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
From: Henri Wilson on 30 Aug 2007 19:26 On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 21:41:11 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"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. That was true before the advent of computers. Time you brought yourself up to date george. >>>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. Time you brought yourself up to date george. >>> >>>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. That's what I thought you said. You finally accept the fact. >> 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. Your a losing it George. Definitely time for a holiday.... >>>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. ...and getting nowhere... >>>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. Schroedinger doesn't describe an individual photon. >> How can FIELDS be >> described by PHOTONS? > > E = rP/q Where's the physics? >> 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. George I probalby know a lot more about maths than you do. I prefer not to use it. I am fortunate enough to have a mind that can literally turn the maths into physical models and vice versa. That's what makes me superior to engineers. >>>> 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. All of mine were largely physics. I tended towards engineering later. >>>> 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. ...and it certainly backs up my unification idea. It also shows why DeSitter's 'disproof' of the BaTh was wrong. >> 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 conditions required for multiple imagery to occur are never reached ......rarely even approached. >>>> Willusions don't occur in the lab...in fact they are virtually >>>> negligible >>>> o >>>> 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. That's your last ditch argument....when all else fails make stupid statements like that one. My program can only produce a very stringent range of curves. It so happens that most star curve fit into this range...Coincidence George? >>>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. Hahahhaoohoh! >> >> 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. Move a planck curve sideway 1% and see what it does to the V band. >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: Eric Gisse on 30 Aug 2007 19:47 On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 00:15:24 -0400, "T.M. Sommers" <tms(a)nj.net> wrote: >Eric Gisse wrote: >> On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 22:12:26 +0100, "George Dishman" >> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>>Certainly for millisecond pulsars, they get spun >>>up by accreting matter from a companion. >> >> That isn't true. All you'd get is a type 1a supernova if accretion >> were going on. > >I think you are thinking of white dwarfs (or is it dwarves?). >Neutron stars are the remnants of supernovas, and they aren't >going to supernova again. A type 1a supernova is a neutron star that has accreted enough hydrogen to initiate fusion on the outer surface. Basically, its a huge bomb. > >> Pulars in binary systems are rather rare. > >Rare or not, they exist. Accreting neutron stars are x-ray sources.
From: Eric Gisse on 30 Aug 2007 19:48 On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 22:56:16 GMT, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote: >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. Yes Ralph, but where are your equations? You *love* generating concepts but not once have you ever generated equations from the concepts. Still waiting for your three subdimensions of time theory to be fleshed out.. > >>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: T.M. Sommers on 30 Aug 2007 21:06
Eric Gisse wrote: > On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 00:15:24 -0400, "T.M. Sommers" <tms(a)nj.net> wrote: >>Eric Gisse wrote: >>>On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 22:12:26 +0100, "George Dishman" >>><george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>>>Certainly for millisecond pulsars, they get spun >>>>up by accreting matter from a companion. >>> >>>That isn't true. All you'd get is a type 1a supernova if accretion >>>were going on. >> >>I think you are thinking of white dwarfs (or is it dwarves?). >>Neutron stars are the remnants of supernovas, and they aren't >>going to supernova again. > > A type 1a supernova is a neutron star that has accreted enough > hydrogen to initiate fusion on the outer surface. Basically, its a > huge bomb. You have a source for that? Because everything I have read says neutron stars are the end result of a supernova, not the precursor to one, and that they are cold; their surfaces are cold enough to be solid. Fusion on the surface is highly improbable. -- Thomas M. Sommers -- tms(a)nj.net -- AB2SB |