GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: Henri Wilson on 16 Sep 2007 20:03 On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 20:30:36 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)guesswhathia.no> wrote: >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! TIME = DISTANCE TRAVELED / LIGHT SPEED D/c+v.......your words.. >[snip] > >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 16 Sep 2007 20:11 On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 22:06:46 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)guesswhathia.no> wrote: >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. wrt what? .....certainly not the source... >| So we have: >| 2*pi*r + tf*v = tf*c > >D + d = tf*c > >tf = (D + d)/? > >I know. Too hard for you. Magic will always be hard because it often involves fairies. Your equation relies on an unproven postulate and doesn't explain how the light emitted by the source moves at c wrt both the source and the ring. The postulate is already disproved by the ccompanying sagnac ring diagram which shows the rays clearly moving NOT at c wrt the source but at c+/-v >| 2*pi*r - tb*v = tb*c > >D - d = tb*c > >tb = (D - d)/? > >I know. Too hard for you. The equation is trivial......the logic nonexistant. >> 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. Your explanation is entirely circular....Unfortunately for you, it alsorefutes itself. >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: George Dishman on 17 Sep 2007 03:51 On 17 Sep, 00:59, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote: > On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 11:46:21 +0100, "George Dishman" <geo...(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.. No, think about it, you know better. > >>>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? They aren't, they are shown moving at c in the lab frame. If you want to draw a different diagram showing them in the inertial frame of the source at the moment of emission (which is usually called the "momentarily co-moving" frame) then the speed will also be c, but that diagram isn't usually drawn. > >>>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). No, TIME = (DISTANCE TRAVELED)/(CLOSING SPEED) > OR, as Paul stated so clearly: D/(c+v) Yes, the speed of the light is c, the speed of the target is v. Henry, stop wasting our time with your stupid word games, they won't achieve anything other than demonstrating that you don't understand even the simplest terminology. > >> 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'. I am just restating what YOU proved. When we studied pulsars, your program showed there was NO detectable ADoppler. The phasing of the contact binaries likewise showed only VDopppler. You haven't done a valid analysis of a Cepheid yet but you will find the same, radius and temperature changes expalin _all_ of the luminosity variation. > >> 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). Your maths is naive. Integrate the function across the sphere then include the equations for the boundary transition effects then integrate over the ISM. > >>>> >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. Then you should be able to apply one small set of analytical calculatoions 600 times, you don't even need pairs. > >> 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. No point, we already agreed there is only VDoppler for pulsars and contact binaries and the program isn't applicable to Cepheids. > >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 chnage 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. Sure but it acts in the same direction so the above qualitative analysis still holds good. > >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. We are talking about Shapiro delay Henry, the effect is known and in the opposite direction. > >>>> 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? No. > It would appear to be a variable to a distant observer. No. According to ballistic theory it would appear to vary in surface brightness but not in temperature or radius. In reality we know it wouldn't vary in brightness either because the stars around which extra-solar planets have been found are not variable, even those with "hot Jupiters". George
From: Henri Wilson on 17 Sep 2007 05:38 On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 00:51:56 -0700, George Dishman <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >On 17 Sep, 00:59, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote: >> On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 11:46:21 +0100, "George Dishman" <geo...(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> >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? > >They aren't, they are shown moving at c in the >lab frame. If you want to draw a different diagram >showing them in the inertial frame of the source >at the moment of emission (which is usually called >the "momentarily co-moving" frame) then the speed >will also be c, but that diagram isn't usually >drawn. It is almost inconceivable that any same person would persist with the claim that the rays are NOT shown as moving at c+/-v wrt the source. ....but such is the mind of the delusional relativist.... >> >> 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). > >No, TIME = (DISTANCE TRAVELED)/(CLOSING SPEED) > >> OR, as Paul stated so clearly: D/(c+v) > >Yes, the speed of the light is c, the speed of the >target is v. Henry, stop wasting our time with your >stupid word games, they won't achieve anything other >than demonstrating that you don't understand even >the simplest terminology. George, you are agreeing that the ray moves at c+v wrt the source...but you are apparently incapable of accepting the fact. >> >> >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). > >Your maths is naive. Integrate the function across >the sphere then include the equations for the boundary >transition effects then integrate over the ISM. I provide the ideas. I'Il let some PhD student do the tedious stuff.... >> >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. > >Then you should be able to apply one small set of >analytical calculatoions 600 times, you don't even >need pairs. You do it George. ......you can't can you... :) >> >> 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. > >No point, we already agreed there is only VDoppler >for pulsars and contact binaries and the program >isn't applicable to Cepheids. So why does it reproduce so many Cepheid curves? >> >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 chnage 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. > >Sure but it acts in the same direction so the >above qualitative analysis still holds good. Not so... >> >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. > >We are talking about Shapiro delay Henry, the >effect is known and in the opposite direction. :) .......Wilsonian Delay has replaced it... >> >> >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? > >No. > >> It would appear to be a variable to a distant observer. > >No. According to ballistic theory it would appear >to vary in surface brightness but not in temperature >or radius. That's what I said. That's what most variables are. >In reality we know it wouldn't vary in brightness >either because the stars around which extra-solar >planets have been found are not variable, even >those with "hot Jupiters". You don't know that at all. > >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: Paul B. Andersen on 17 Sep 2007 06:05
Henri Wilson wrote: > On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 22:06:46 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" > <paul.b.andersen(a)guesswhathia.no> wrote: > >> 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. > > wrt what? > ....certainly not the source... > >> | So we have: >> | 2*pi*r + tf*v = tf*c >> >> D + d = tf*c >> >> tf = (D + d)/? >> >> I know. Too hard for you. > > Magic will always be hard because it often involves fairies. > Your equation relies on an unproven postulate > and doesn't explain how the light > emitted by the source moves at c wrt both the source and the ring. > The postulate is already disproved by the ccompanying sagnac ring diagram which > shows the rays clearly moving NOT at c wrt the source but at c+/-v > >> | 2*pi*r - tb*v = tb*c >> >> D - d = tb*c >> >> tb = (D - d)/? >> >> I know. Too hard for you. > > The equation is trivial......the logic nonexistant. > >>> 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. > > Your explanation is entirely circular....Unfortunately for you, it alsorefutes > itself. Henri, you are babbling. Paul |