GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: George Dishman on 12 Sep 2007 16:20 "Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:rj8hd3h788t1bp29uhhmief3ml9ltm9r48(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 11:40:27 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message > >>> That was true before the advent of computers. Time you brought yourself >>> up >>> todate george. >> >>The computer will do the calculation, you still >>need the equations. For example there are programs >>as part of PCB design suites that will predict the >>EMI for a board, you can get the router to place >>tracks to minimise crosstalk or have specific >>impewdances and so on, but they all work by solving >>Maxwell's Equations and without those the prgorams >>couldn't be written. > > George, as an example, I produce elliptical orbits without using Kepler's > equations. > The program actually generates those equations from basic Newton then uses > them > to poduce graphed results.. > Equations are not much good on their own. Try writing your program without Newton's equation. .... >>>>> 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... >> >>Other than the invention of the transistor and >>everything that came from, lasers, laser and >>fibre gyros, and on and on. The whole of modern >>technology has come from relativity and QM. > > Transistors hardly came from QM George... Have you tried calculating the base width without it? > and certainly relativity has nothing > whatsoever to do with them.... > > >>>>> 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. >> >>I suggest you have a look at this though the >>topic is beyond the scope of our conversation: >> >> http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/wave_equations.html >> >>Hit "next" a couple of times to here >> >> http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/FiniteSquareWell/FiniteSquareWell.htmland I hate Google !!!!!! :- >>look at the graphic about two thirds down.Think of the potential curve as >>the cross-sectionof an optical fibre. Does the tail remind you ofthe >>evanescent wave? >>> How can FIELDS be >>> described by PHOTONS? >> >>>> E = rP/q >> >>> Where's the physics? >> >>You snipped it earlier: >> >>>>... The >>>>definition of the electric field for example >>>>is: >>>> >>>> E = f / q >>>> >>>>and the definition of force is: >>>> >>>> f = dp/dt >>>> >>>>hence >>>> >>>> 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 is the physics. Snip rest of Google's mangling, sorry about that ... George
From: George Dishman on 12 Sep 2007 16:25 "Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:328hd3h5vkb8cr6cbq75hf4j71e6fe35nj(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 09:37:51 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >>news:2nied3p1ash6ohj5uesptae3nehoef73mp(a)4ax.com... >>> 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... >>... >>>>>>> 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. >> >>Not in science, only if you are a philosopher. >>In science equations start as empirical from >>observation and the concept is developed to >>fit the equations. In Ritz's case he started >>with the MMx and suggested an equation to fit >>which was subsequently falsified by Sagnac. >>There is no concept involved since you cannot >>explain his model in wave terms - there is no >>way to convert his postulate into a second >>order differential - and he wasn't suggesting >>a particulate model AFAIK. > > George, the BaTh was supposedly disproved by De Sitter, not Sagnac.....who > certainly knew nothing about ring gyros. The four mirror apparatus does > not > disprove the BaTh since the assumption that light reflects from moving > mirrors > at both incident speed and angle are wrong for reasons that I have given. None of your reply even vaguely addresses my point. George
From: George Dishman on 12 Sep 2007 18:07 "Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:oh4hd3tvl3i1aagscrj93i217k7pc94flu(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 10:14:38 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: .... >>> George, my simulations are accurate. They also match most star curves. >> >>For binaries, your program does most of what is >>needed other than showing the correct predicted >>velocity curve, for Cepheids it is useless because >>you cannot enter the temperature effects and it >>needs another curve showing the radius. > > give it up George... Why should I, the radius and temperature changes are orders of magnitude greater than any ballistic effects so until you address them, your so-called fits to the data are worthless. >>>>> 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? >> >>Because my analysis used ballistic theory to >>demonstrate that there would be no fringe shift. > > George, you admit that the SR sagnac diagram has the rays closing on the > source > at c+/-v, when viewed in the rest frame. Changing the subject again Henry? We were talking about the ballistic version. > Do you not then agree that to a third orbserver, the light from a distant > orbiting star would 'close on' another star at c+v.sin(at)? No, it would close at c is SR. > WOULD NOT THAT THIRD OBSERVER DEDUCE THAT, TO AN OBSERVER ON THE SECOND > STAR, > THE FIRST STAR WOULD APPEAR TO VARY IN LUMINOSITY? Only by the amount due to VDoppler. >>>>> 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? >> >>Don't try to change the subject, can you name a >>single experiment where applying Ritz's equation >>gives an answer that differs from SR and matches >>the exerimental result? > > TWLS is dead constant for the simple reason that light is ballistic. > That is, it moves at c wrt its source and everything at rest wrt the > source. > So naturally tAB=tBA in any TWLS experiment and in that case, TWLS also = > OWLS > = c Irrelevant, Sagnac measures the one-way speed. >>>>> 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. >> >>Liar, you say the light moves at c wrt the source and >>you use the Galilean Transforms so the CLOSING VELOCITY >>is c in all frames in ballistic theory, you do NOT use >>closing velocities of c+/-v. > > ...but that's not what your sagnac diagram shows... You need to be clear about which diagram you mean, I have done both SR and ballistic. Both are shown correctly. >>>>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. >> >>Come on Henry, don't be stupid. The temperature accounts >>for most of that from Planck's Law so you should have >>said "..and ADoppler could easily account for the rest." >>Until you remove the influence of temperature, you results >>are grossly wrong. > > Until ADoppler is considered, almost the whole of astronomy is wrong. You have already shown there is no ADoppler for pulsars and contact binaries and if you do a proper analysis of Cepheids you will find there is nonne there either so you have only confirmed conventional astronomy is correct. >>> What about all those supposed eclipsing stars that aren't eclipsing at >>> all? >> >>When I pointed out that you had misread the period >>on the graphs for conatct binaries, you eventually >>agreed they were actually eclipses. > > You are refering to one particular star, EF Dra. That was a genuine > mistake > because the two 'dips' of the curve are very similar in height. Sure, but put the slip behind you, I'm not making any mileage of it. When you did the analysis taking that into account, the luminosity relative to the eclipse was in phase with VDoppler, not ADoppler, and the eclipse accounts for all of the luminosity variation. >>> Many are just orbiting stars with eccentricity around 0.5 and their >>> perihelions >>> closest to Earth. >> >>You backed down on that claim, had you forgotten? > > I certainly did not. > I said it is almost impossible to tell fom a light curve if a star is > genuinely > eclipsing or not. Fine, the point remains, the binary we looked at in detail is 90 degrees out of phase with ADoppler and all the others have been studied to see what can be learnt from the detailed shape of the curves regrading their separation and to what degree they are 'overcontact'. A significant phase error would have been headline news. > Only spectral data wil reveal the truth and even that may be > suspect. Many stars classified as 'eclipsing' would not have been > investigated > further. How naive. >>>>> >> >For a > >>>>> 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.. >> >>The confirmation is because your method gives the >>same result as mine. > > It is very useful to have a way of checking the programming. > Your method is much harder than mine...and only maginally faster. You have no idea how to use it then, it should reduce the calculation time by a factor of about 100,000 from the figures you gave me. >>>>> 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. >> >>So you imagine, but your program doesn't calculate >>it whatever you anticipate. > > Cepheid curves are like this: > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/stupidjerry.jpg > > That's what I produce with my program. You can produce any curve with your program. > You can calculate the value of 'K' for > any star simply by dividing the OBSERVED velocity variation by the > luminosity > change. That isn't the definition of K you gave before. >>>>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. >> >>Of course it can, the shift of 0.01% is one part >>in 1600 for the K band so at most it produces a >>few degrees error and since the levels at the ends >>of the band are similar in practice far less. > > ADoppler can produce more than 0.01% shift. Irrelevant, the shift _is_ 0.01% whatever causes it and 0.01% one part in 1600 of 6000K is less than four degree. Bear in mind luminosity varies as the fourth power of temperature and it is even smaller. >>>>> >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. >> >>I see you now realise it is correct, your suggestion >>doesn't work. No answer? Clearly you now see the problem. >>>>> 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. >> >>Ah "forces unknown". Henry, in science all we do >>is apply the equations. If you do that in the >>above scenario the signal arrives earlier because >>of gravity and earlier because of the shadowing >>when on the far side of the planet and ealier >>because of the reflected light on this side. Three >>earlies don't make a late. > > George, no matter what the process, the final velocity will be the same as > the > initial one. Not with your new "radiation pressure" model, it gets increased on both sides of the planet. > However D/(c+v) + D/(c-v) = 2Dc/(c^2-v^2).....so the time taken is always > greater than D/c. Nope, without the planet it is 2 * D/(c-v1) where v1 is due to direct sunlight. With the planet it becomes D/c + D/(c-v1+v2) where v2 is due to the reflected light. It is obvious even qualitatively that both effects cause it to arrive earlier and that is on top of the ballistic effect which also makes it earlier. Forget it Henry, it is a non-solution. >>>>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. >> >>Forget the wind nonsense, it only makes matters worse. >>You are saying nothing more than the Shapiro delay >>should be early as a result of ballistic but it is late >>because of "factors as yet unknown". That means ballistic >>theory is wrong and you hope you can cover it up with >>something else. > > George, you obviously don't understand how progress is made in Physics. > Any > 'unknown' requires an investigation and explanation.. Of course, but the Shapiro delay isn't an unknown. > I have identified one such phenomenon...one that has never been observed > before > because of the Einstein debacle. ROFL, your nonsense makes the failure of ballistic theory worse! >>> 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) >> >>The point is that we don't detect the Shapiro delay >>for whatever reason so you have no orbital phase >>reference with which to distinguish VDoppler from >>ADoppler so you cannot prove anything either way >>using that system. > > hahaha! > George, you don't seem to understand what a 'simulation' is....very > strange for > any modern engineer.... Oh I know vastly better than you ever will, and I also know that since you only use a subset of the available data (e.g. no pulse amplitudes) you need a phase reference. By all means do a proper analysis if you think you can but so far the only systems we have studied have shown no ADoppler whatsoever. Don't keep slapping your gums, just put up or shut up. George
From: Henri Wilson on 12 Sep 2007 18:09 On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 12:10:25 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)hiadeletethis.no> wrote: >Pentcho Valev wrote: >> >> The emission theory gives the equations c'=c-v and c'=c+v whereas >> special relativity gives c'=c. Which equations: c'=c-v and c'=c+v or >> c'=c, are relevant in the interpretation of the Sagnac experiment? >> >> Pentcho Valev > >The Sagnac experiment: >- Given an inertial frame which is the reference > for all speeds mentioned below. > That is, all speeds are relative to this non-rotating frame. >- Given a stationary circle with radius r. >- Given a light source moving at the speed v around the circle. >- Assume the light is moving around the circle (infinite number of mirrors). >- Let tf be the time the light emittet in the forward direction > uses to catch up with the source. >- Let tb be the time the light emittet in the backward direction > uses to meet the source. > >Prediction according to SR: >--------------------------- >The speed of the light emitted in the forward direction is c. >The speed of the light emitted in the backward direction is c. wrt what? >So we have: >2*pi*r + tf*v = tf*c >tf = 2*pi*r/(c-v) > >2*pi*r - tb*v = tb*c >tb = 2*pi*r/(c+v) > >delta_t = tf - tb = 4*pi*r*v/(c^2 - v^2) You have already proved SR wrong. You have calculated travel TIME as d/c+v. You are blind to your own mistakes. >Setting w = v/r, A = pi*r^2, g = (1 - v^2/c^2)^-0.5 >we get: > >delta_t = (4Aw/c^2)* g^2 > >The g^2 will obviously be unmeasureable different from 1 >for any practical Sagnac experiment. > >So SR predicts delta_t = 4Aw/c^2 which is in accordance >with enumerable practical experiments. > >Prediction correct, SR confirmed. > >Prediction according to the emission theory: >-------------------------------------------- >The speed of the light emitted in the forward direction is c+v. >The speed of the light emitted in the backwards direction is c-v. > >So we have: >2*pi*r + tf*v = tf*(c+v) >tf = 2*pi*r/c > >2*pi*r - tb*v = tb*(c-v) >tb = 2*pi*r/c > >delta_t = tf - tb = 0 > >So emission theory predicts delta_t = 0, while enumerable practical >experiments shows delta_t = 4Aw/c^2 > >Prediction wrong - emission theory falsified. The wrong criteria have been used. The truth is, light does NOT reflect from a moving mirror at the incident speed and angle. >Paul 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 12 Sep 2007 18:23
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 21:20:41 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >news:rj8hd3h788t1bp29uhhmief3ml9ltm9r48(a)4ax.com... >> On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 11:40:27 +0100, "George Dishman" >> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> George, as an example, I produce elliptical orbits without using Kepler's >> equations. >> The program actually generates those equations from basic Newton then uses >> them >> to poduce graphed results.. >> Equations are not much good on their own. > >Try writing your program without Newton's equation. George there is nothing wrong with my ellpses. I even distorted them sligthly to see what difference it made to the results....and it made very little. >>>Other than the invention of the transistor and >>>everything that came from, lasers, laser and >>>fibre gyros, and on and on. The whole of modern >>>technology has come from relativity and QM. >> >> Transistors hardly came from QM George... > >Have you tried calculating the base width >without it? I'll leave that to the experts. They can use the statsitical approach if they have to. 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. |