GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: Paul B. Andersen on 17 Sep 2007 06:46 Henri Wilson wrote: > 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 Indeed. Distance travelled = D + d Light speed = c TIME = DISTANCE TRAVELED / LIGHT SPEED time = (D+d)/c tf = (2*pi*r + tf*v)/c How the hell can this "prove SR wrong"? :-) Paul
From: Paul B. Andersen on 17 Sep 2007 07:16 Henri Wilson wrote: > On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 05:47:09 -0700, sean <jaymoseley(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> No. >> The fact is I have, using vector calculations and posted them as >> sagnac sims at... >> http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb > > It is a joke compared with mine..... Agree. Your Sagnac animation is fine. It clearly shows that the emission theory predicts no fringe shifts, while SR does. Paul
From: George Dishman on 17 Sep 2007 08:05 Henri Wilson wrote: > 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. "wrt the source" means the source is the origin of the coordinates system so is at rest by definition. The drawing shows the source moving so is not "wrt the source". Any sane person trying to discus a scientific topic would take the trouble to learn what the scientific terms mean, you should do the same. > >> >> 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 I am educating you as to what the phrase "wrt" means, you can either learn or continue to get it wrong. > >> 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.... In other words you can't do schoolboy calculus and don't have a theory. .... > >> 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? It doesn't, all your curves are worthless because you haven't removed the effects of radius and temperature changes which dominate the luminosity. > >> >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 note you can find no flaw in it. Try correcting your equations now that you understand the situation being discussed. Your silly suggestion only makes the result worse, even earlier instead of later. > >> >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... No such thing Henry, your effect would be an advance, not a delay (see above). > >> >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. ... No, the temperature would not appear to be variable which is what you said. > >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. Prove me wrong then, they should _all_ be variables if ballistic theory was correct. George
From: Androcles on 17 Sep 2007 08:06 "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)hiadeletethis.no> wrote in message news:46EE5AF3.2050509(a)hiadeletethis.no... : Henri Wilson wrote: : > 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 : : Indeed. : Distance travelled = D + d : Light speed = c : TIME = DISTANCE TRAVELED / LIGHT SPEED : time = (D+d)/c : tf = (2*pi*r + tf*v)/c : : How the hell can this "prove SR wrong"? :-) It proves you cannot manage simple algebra and switch frames. tf = (2*pi*r + tf*v)/(c+v) (stationary frame) tf = (2*pi*r)/c (rotating frame) http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/SagnacIdiocy.htm It proves you are a stupid troll with a silly smirk. As an educator you are as much use as codeine in a guillotine basket. Indeed. Quite.
From: Jeckyl on 17 Sep 2007 08:38
"Androcles" <Engineer(a)hogwarts.physics> wrote in message news:T4uHi.226704$p7.99775(a)fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk... > > "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)hiadeletethis.no> wrote in message > news:46EE5AF3.2050509(a)hiadeletethis.no... > : Henri Wilson wrote: > : > 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 > : > : Indeed. > : Distance travelled = D + d > : Light speed = c > : TIME = DISTANCE TRAVELED / LIGHT SPEED > : time = (D+d)/c > : tf = (2*pi*r + tf*v)/c > : > : How the hell can this "prove SR wrong"? :-) > > It proves you cannot manage simple algebra and switch frames. Why do you need to switch frames? Its all easily done in the stationary frame > tf = (2*pi*r + tf*v)/(c+v) (stationary frame) no .. tf = (2*pi*r + tf*v)/c (stationary frame) .. really you are just plain dumb > tf = (2*pi*r)/c (rotating frame) > > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/SagnacIdiocy.htm > > It proves you are a stupid troll with a silly smirk. It proves you're an idiot. Funny how the rest of the world understand Sagnac and how it is explained by SR (and refutes ballistic theories). And you just can't get it .. and then are an even bigger idiot by advertising your ignorance on your own web pages. What a joke you are. |