GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: George Dishman on 16 Sep 2007 06:46 "Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:60poe3t8l836bocah58b3q2pncf15vk9sh(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 03:59:50 -0700, George Dishman > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: > >> >>Henri Wilson wrote: >>> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 23:07:11 +0100, "George Dishman" >>> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>> >"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. >>> >>> >> 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. >>> >>> You got that wrong. >> >>I got it right, you may be thinking of ballistic theory >>instead of SR. > > Most of your colleagues use the term 'closing speed' in this contaxt. I think the term originally came from the military and referred to the speed at which an interceptor 'closed' on a target. > It does > not have to equal c. No, but above the light would close at c on the third star which is what you asked. It would move away from the first two at some other value and it would close on the third at a variable speed in ballistic theory but not in SR which was the context of the question. I think you just made a mistake in your question, we have never disagreed about any of this. >>> >> 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. >>> >>> the fact that you don't understand doesn't make it irrelevant. >> >>You said ".. in any TWLS experiment .." but Sagnac >>isn't a two-way test. What you say is true for MMX for >>example which _is_ a two way measurement, it measures >>th sum of the times, not the difference. > > Sagnac measures rotation. Yes. > It does that by exploiting the phenomenon that light does not reflect from > a > moving mirror at the incident angle and speed. It does so because the speed is c in the inertial frame (ingoring refractive index effects) whatever the cause. Ballistic theory also says the speed after reflection will be c incidentally. >>> >> ...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. >>> >>> I am refering to the standard sagnac ring diagram. >> >>No, you said ". that's not what YOUR sagnac diagram >>shows .." (my emphasis). > > 'YOUR' here means 'relativist' No, it means "George's", you just need to say which one because I have done several. >>> The rays are shown to move >>> at c+/-v wrt the source. >>> Don't deny it George. >> >>Sorry Henry, I have corrected that error so many >>times, I'm not going to repeat it. You know you >>are wrong but if you insist on wishing to be >>ignorant, that's your choice. > > George, your 'correction' is not a correction at all. Yes it is Henry, you need to learn the terminology of the field. > The plain fact is, the times are calculated to be d/c+v and > d/c-v....distance > traveled over light speed. Wrong again, that is distance over the difference between the light speed and the target speed, or as we discussed above the distance to be closed divided by the rate at which that distance decreases hence "closing speed". > Andersen has written this mistake many times for the world to see. Paul is correct, you are wrong. You should learn what he has been trying to teach you. >>> there are lots of stars out there George...and only a limited number of >>> misled >>> astronomers. >> >>Only a fraction are eclising binaries and for those >>that have had their luminosity curves studied, you >>will find most have also had their spectra recorded >>to the point of confirming that they are spectroscpic >>binaries. > > That's right...and most eclipsing spectroscopic binaries are close and > have > short periods. That means their EM spheres overlap and little or no > brightness > variation is expected..only that due to VDoppler. Yes, there is only VDoppler in every case studies, you can offer not a single case where ADoppler can be _proven_ to exist. > Paul asked me many times to explain why HD80715 isn't a variable. I have > done > that. You haven't explained it at all Henry, in science explaining means showing mathematically from the equation which constitutes your theory. Until you publish that, you have no explanation. >>> >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. >>> >>> It doesn't, It is only about twice as fast. >> >>Then you haven't made best use of it. It sounds as >>though you are still iterrating along the light path. > > No, your 'doppler' method requires fewer sample points but many more > subsequent > calculations at each one. No, it should allow the same number of samples round the orbit, whihc is just however many points you want on your graphs, and then you do a single set of calculations for each point, all of which are analytical. You should not have any iteration along the light path and no iterative methods used for the Keplerian orbit if you use the mean anomaly as you independent variable rather than time. > On emy computer, each set of curves is produced in less that a second with > either method....so it doesn't matter which one I use. It's nice to have > agreement between the two....just for checking the methods.... That's cool then. With my method it should go down to a few tens of milliseconds which is good enough for a live version, hence the style of my GUI. You snipped the equations! Here they are again: >>> >> 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. >>> >>> Either you don't understand or you are having difficulty in conveying >>> what you >>> mean.... >> >>Probably I didn't understand because you had trouble >>conveying what you meant. Try defining what D and v >>are in your equation, I may have guessed incorrectly. > > A---------------------S---------------------B > > If an object falls under gravity from A towards the star and then on onto > B, > Its final speed will equal that at A. Yes, but that's a trivial part of the setup. We are comparing two situations: S--p---q-----------E \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ Sun According to your suggestion, the signal from satellite S is slowed by radiation pressure from the sunlight all along the path. Consider in particular parts p and q. Now introduce Jupiter: S------q-----------E / \ J \ \ \ \ \ \ \ Sun At point p, Jupiter shades the signal so it is not slowed by the sunlight, it arrives earlier. At point q it is still slowed by the sunlight as before (so no cnhnage from that) but the reflected light acts in the opposite direction pushing the signal towards Earth and again making it arrive earlier. I took D in your equation as the length of the shadowed path at p and since you only used one distance guessed you were assuming the length at q over which reflected light was significant was the same (not unreasonable). Your speed v would be the difference between the speed without the planet and the speed when it was present. The equations were still too simple but that's the only interpretation that made any sense. > The time taken is calculated by integrating dD/v(t). > Any force that efectively reduces the garvity pull will result in an > increased > travel time. Sure, but when you remove the effect that counteracts gravity, e.g. by shadowing the sunlight, then the speed increases and the signal arrives earlier. >>> Geoge, all my curves are ADoppler. I have no trouble in matching >>> observed ones. >> >>Sure, but all your curves are matched to the temperature >>and radius variation, not any ADoppler part so they are >>universally wrong. Even once you correct that error, it >>still means nothing, what you have to do to produce >>a proof is show that it _is_ ADoppler, not just that it >>_might_ be. > > The temperature and radius variations are largely mythical. Sorry Henry, they are accurately measured according to ballistic theory and until you take them into account your curves are meaningless. George
From: Paul B. Andersen on 16 Sep 2007 14:30 Henri Wilson skrev: > 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. SIC! [snip] Paul
From: Paul B. Andersen on 16 Sep 2007 16:06 Henri Wilson skrev: > On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 16:23:32 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" > <paul.b.andersen(a)hiadeletethis.no> wrote: >> Sagnac falsifies emission theory. >> No question about it. > > Paul, your own maths show clearly that Sagnac disproves SR. The two travel > times YOU calculated as (distance/light speed) are (D+d)/(c+v) and (D-d)/(c-v). | 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. | | So we have: | 2*pi*r + tf*v = tf*c D + d = tf*c tf = (D + d)/? I know. Too hard for you. | 2*pi*r - tb*v = tb*c D - d = tb*c tb = (D - d)/? I know. Too hard for you. > > What does that say about light always traveling at c? It says that this simple calculation is beyond your abilities. But we knew that. Further demonstrations unnecessary. You can stop now. Paul
From: Androcles on 16 Sep 2007 16:41 "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)guesswhathia.no> wrote in message news:46ED8CD6.3070509(a)guesswhathia.no... : Henri Wilson skrev: : > On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 16:23:32 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" : > <paul.b.andersen(a)hiadeletethis.no> wrote: : >> Sagnac falsifies emission theory. : >> No question about it. : > : > Paul, your own maths show clearly that Sagnac disproves SR. The two travel : > times YOU calculated as (distance/light speed) are (D+d)/(c+v) and (D-d)/(c-v). : : | Prediction according to SR: : | --------------------------- : | The speed of the light emitted in the forward direction is c. But the emitter is moving at v. Too hard, even for a troll like you. -- 'we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO and you have to agree because I'm the great genius, STOOOPID, don't you dare question it. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/tAB=tBA.gif "Neither [frame] is stationary, which is your problem." -- Blind "I'm not a troll" Poe. Ref: news:1189468758.944626.39450(a)r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com 'we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel from A to B doesn't equal the "time" it requires to travel from B to A in the stationary system, obviously.' -- Heretic Jan Bielawski, assistant light-bulb changer. Ref: news:1188363019.673281.67710(a)k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com "SR is GR with G=0." -- Uncle Stooopid. The Uncle Stooopid doctrine: http://sound.westhost.com/counterfeit.jpg "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." -- Uncle Stooopid. "Counterfactual assumptions yield nonsense. If such a thing were actually observed, reliably and reproducibly, then relativity would immediately need a major overhaul if not a complete replacement." -- Humpty Roberts. Rabbi Albert Einstein in 1895 failed an examination that would have allowed him to study for a diploma as an electrical engineer at the Eidgen�ssische Technische Hochschule in Zurich (couldn't even pass the SATs). According to Phuckwit Duck it was geography and history that Einstein failed on, as if Eidgen�ssische Technische Hochschule would give a damn. That tells you the lengths these lying bastards will go to to protect their tin god, but its always a laugh when they slip up. Trolls, the lot of them. "This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is completely irrelevant." -- Humpty Roberts.
From: Henri Wilson on 16 Sep 2007 19:59
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 11:46:21 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >news:60poe3t8l836bocah58b3q2pncf15vk9sh(a)4ax.com... >> On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 03:59:50 -0700, George Dishman > >>> >>>I got it right, you may be thinking of ballistic theory >>>instead of SR. >> >> Most of your colleagues use the term 'closing speed' in this contaxt. > >I think the term originally came from the military and >referred to the speed at which an interceptor 'closed' >on a target. > >> It does >> not have to equal c. > >No, but above the light would close at c on the third >star which is what you asked. It would move away from >the first two at some other value and it would close >on the third at a variable speed in ballistic theory >but not in SR which was the context of the question. ....in SR as well.. >>>You said ".. in any TWLS experiment .." but Sagnac >>>isn't a two-way test. What you say is true for MMX for >>>example which _is_ a two way measurement, it measures >>>th sum of the times, not the difference. >> >> Sagnac measures rotation. > >Yes. > >> It does that by exploiting the phenomenon that light does not reflect from >> a >> moving mirror at the incident angle and speed. > >It does so because the speed is c in the inertial frame >(ingoring refractive index effects) whatever the cause. >Ballistic theory also says the speed after reflection >will be c incidentally. :) Then why are the rays shown to be moving at c+/-v wrt the inertial frame of the source at the moment of emission? >>>Sorry Henry, I have corrected that error so many >>>times, I'm not going to repeat it. You know you >>>are wrong but if you insist on wishing to be >>>ignorant, that's your choice. >> >> George, your 'correction' is not a correction at all. > >Yes it is Henry, you need to learn the terminology >of the field. > >> The plain fact is, the times are calculated to be d/c+v and >> d/c-v....distance >> traveled over light speed. > >Wrong again, that is distance over the difference >between the light speed and the target speed, or >as we discussed above the distance to be closed >divided by the rate at which that distance >decreases hence "closing speed". > >> Andersen has written this mistake many times for the world to see. > >Paul is correct, you are wrong. You should learn >what he has been trying to teach you. TIME = (DISTANCE TRAVELED)/(RELATIVE LIGHT SPEED). OR, as Paul stated so clearly: D/(c+v) >> That's right...and most eclipsing spectroscopic binaries are close and >> have >> short periods. That means their EM spheres overlap and little or no >> brightness >> variation is expected..only that due to VDoppler. > >Yes, there is only VDoppler in every case studies, you >can offer not a single case where ADoppler can be >_proven_ to exist. George, we often hear the term 'psychological deafness', You suffer from 'psychological blindness'. >> Paul asked me many times to explain why HD80715 isn't a variable. I have >> done >> that. > >You haven't explained it at all Henry, in science >explaining means showing mathematically from the >equation which constitutes your theory. Until you >publish that, you have no explanation. The maths is trivial. Luminosity variation = VDoppler (almost negligible). >>>> >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. >>>> >>>> It doesn't, It is only about twice as fast. >>> >>>Then you haven't made best use of it. It sounds as >>>though you are still iterrating along the light path. >> >> No, your 'doppler' method requires fewer sample points but many more >> subsequent >> calculations at each one. > >No, it should allow the same number of samples >round the orbit, whihc is just however many >points you want on your graphs, and then you >do a single set of calculations for each point, >all of which are analytical. You should not have >any iteration along the light path and no >iterative methods used for the Keplerian orbit >if you use the mean anomaly as you independent >variable rather than time. That's not a good method. Since my curves are 600 pixels in length, I only need 600 sample pairs of points around the orbit. >> On my computer, each set of curves is produced in less that a second with >> either method....so it doesn't matter which one I use. It's nice to have >> agreement between the two....just for checking the methods.... > >That's cool then. With my method it should go down >to a few tens of milliseconds which is good enough >for a live version, hence the style of my GUI. You do it then George. There is nothing wrong with my GUI. It is extemely simple now...considering thejre are 13 variables and several individual programs. >You snipped the equations! Here they are again: > >>>> >> 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. >>>> >>>> Either you don't understand or you are having difficulty in conveying >>>> what you >>>> mean.... >>> >>>Probably I didn't understand because you had trouble >>>conveying what you meant. Try defining what D and v >>>are in your equation, I may have guessed incorrectly. >> >> A---------------------S---------------------B >> >> If an object falls under gravity from A towards the star and then on onto >> B, >> Its final speed will equal that at A. > >Yes, but that's a trivial part of the setup. We >are comparing two situations: > > > S--p---q-----------E > \ \ > \ \ > \ \ > \ \ > \ \ > Sun > >According to your suggestion, the signal from >satellite S is slowed by radiation pressure >from the sunlight all along the path. Consider >in particular parts p and q. Now introduce >Jupiter: > > S------q-----------E > / \ > J \ > \ \ > \ \ > \ \ > Sun > >At point p, Jupiter shades the signal so it is >not slowed by the sunlight, it arrives earlier. >At point q it is still slowed by the sunlight >as before (so no cnhnage from that) but the >reflected light acts in the opposite direction >pushing the signal towards Earth and again >making it arrive earlier. I assume the 'solar wind' is more than just light radiation. >I took D in your equation as the length of the >shadowed path at p and since you only used one >distance guessed you were assuming the length >at q over which reflected light was significant >was the same (not unreasonable). Your speed v >would be the difference between the speed without >the planet and the speed when it was present. The >equations were still too simple but that's the >only interpretation that made any sense. > >> The time taken is calculated by integrating dD/v(t). >> Any force that efectively reduces the garvity pull will result in an >> increased >> travel time. > >Sure, but when you remove the effect that >counteracts gravity, e.g. by shadowing the >sunlight, then the speed increases and the >signal arrives earlier. That might be an experiment worth trying. >>>> Geoge, all my curves are ADoppler. I have no trouble in matching >>>> observed ones. >>> >>>Sure, but all your curves are matched to the temperature >>>and radius variation, not any ADoppler part so they are >>>universally wrong. Even once you correct that error, it >>>still means nothing, what you have to do to produce >>>a proof is show that it _is_ ADoppler, not just that it >>>_might_ be. >> >> The temperature and radius variations are largely mythical. > >Sorry Henry, they are accurately measured according >to ballistic theory and until you take them into >account your curves are meaningless. George, is our sun changing temperature significantly? It would appear to be a variable to a distant observer. > 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. |