GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: Henri Wilson on 17 Sep 2007 18:50 On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 05:05:54 -0700, George Dishman <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >Henri Wilson wrote: > >> On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 00:51:56 -0700, George Dishman <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> >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. You just digging your hole deeper George.. > >> >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. You are in a state of extreme self-delusion. You have been literally hypnotized by Einsteiniana... >> >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. So far I'm happy to let the computer do the maths and produce graphs that would take centuries to create with equations. >> >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 are in a state of extreme self-delusion. You have been literally hypnotized by Einsteiniana... >> >> >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. If the average speed across the gap is less, then the time taken will be longer. >> > >> >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). It's too hard for you George. >> >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. I said the Planck curve could be displaced sideways by c+v...producing a willusory temperature change >> >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. No they should not. My 'EM spheres' explain why. See the new program at: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/emspheres.exe >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: Henri Wilson on 17 Sep 2007 18:58 On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 12:46:11 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)hiadeletethis.no> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 20:30:36 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >> <paul.b.andersen(a)guesswhathia.no> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> 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 ....not wrt the source... >TIME = DISTANCE TRAVELED / LIGHT SPEED >time = (D+d)/c >tf = (2*pi*r + tf*v)/c > >How the hell can this "prove SR wrong"? :-) What you have done is not related to SR in any way. You could perform the same experiment and apply the same equation to water flowing around a circular pipe. The aspect of the standard Sagnac explanation that IS related to SR is the fact that it shows the rays moving at c+/-v wrt the source....impossible according to SR.... >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 17 Sep 2007 19:01 On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 13:16:09 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)hiadeletethis.no> wrote: >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. My animation is based on light reflecting from a moving mirror at the incident angle and speed. That is where it falls down. Light does not reflect in that way, as I have shown elsewhere. My animation still shows a reduced fringe shift and sideways displacement of the rays. > >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 17 Sep 2007 19:15 On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 19:45:34 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >news:vqied35c30k174ta1rhp3lscfd41q85ec6(a)4ax.com... >> On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 08:18:38 +0100, "George Dishman" >> A photon is not 'a sine wave moving through space'. >> A sine wave is a convenient way of representing the field variations.se: >> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/e-field.exe > >Let's break that into parts to help you along. First >note that you have a wavey like thing moving sideways >and with an imposed amplitude variation or "envelope". >Ignore the envelope and the sideways motion and you >have a standing wave. Did you notice that the colour change represents field polarity reversal. > If you send a propagating >sine wave against a mirror, that is what you get. >Now introduce the motion. To do that you move the >mirror to the right slowly. The reflected wave >must have the same wavelength, lower velocity and >lower frequency (due to Doppler) so without the >envelope your diagram shows two "sine waves moving >through space". Don't be too hasty George. I agree its velocity will most likely change but why do you think it will have the same wavelength? ...and you cannot just remove the envelope... ..the 'ends' taper off to zero anyway. >To get the envlope is trickier. You >multiply the sine wave going from left to right by >the envelope and take a Fourier analysis and you get >the Fourier transform of the envelope itself as >sidebands on the sine wave which acts as a carrier, >but it moves at the speed of the wave, not slowly as >you have shown. Yes of couse. >To solve that you need dispersion, >the speed varies with frequency. Do the same to the >second wave but note that the envelope is propagating >in the wrong direction, left to right while the carrier >goes right to left. Not in the frame of the photon itself... >Once you do the maths for all that, you will find you >don't have an intrinsic frequency but two broadband >signals with continuous frequencies, not discrete and >anisotropic dispersion. No, you're way off beam George. .....think of a photon as something like a pulsting water droplet...distorted into a pointed cigar shape. >In other words, your drawing shows the combination of >an infinite number of 'sine waves moving through space' >but moving in both directions and at different speeds. > >So the question is Henry, where is the mirror? The mirror is where you see the engineer with very limited imagination.... >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 18 Sep 2007 16:51
Henri Wilson skrev: > On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 12:46:11 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" > <paul.b.andersen(a)hiadeletethis.no> wrote: > >> Henri Wilson wrote: >>> On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 20:30:36 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >>> <paul.b.andersen(a)guesswhathia.no> wrote: > >>>>>> 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? 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 emitted in the forward direction uses to catch up with the source. - Let tb be the time the light emitted in the backward direction uses to meet the source. >>>>> >>>>>> 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 > > ...not wrt the source... - Given an inertial frame which is the reference for all speeds mentioned below. That is, all speeds are relative to this non-rotating frame. ============================================================ > >> TIME = DISTANCE TRAVELED / LIGHT SPEED >> time = (D+d)/c >> tf = (2*pi*r + tf*v)/c >> >> How the hell can this "prove SR wrong"? :-) You cannot repeat your claim which you now have realized was wrong, admitting that is no option, so what can you say? Behold: > What you have done is not related to SR in any way. You could perform the same > experiment and apply the same equation to water flowing around a circular pipe. Refutation by water pipes? Plagiarizing Sue? :-) THIS IS WHAT RELATES THE CALCULATION TO SR: ------------------------------------------- #=> The speed of the light emitted in the forward direction is c. #=> The speed of the light emitted in the backwards direction is c. Let D be the circumference of the circle, and let d be the distance the source moves between the light is emitted and is back at the source. So we have: TIME = DISTANCE TRAVELLED / LIGHT SPEED (your own words, Henri) tf = (D+d)/c tf = (2*pi*r + tf*v)/c tf = 2*pi*r/(c-v) tb = (D-d)/c tb = (2*pi*r - tb*v)/c tb = 2*pi*r/(c+v) delta_t = tf - tb = 4*pi*r*v/(c^2 - v^2) 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 unmeasurable 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. ================================= AND THIS IS WHAT RELATES THE FOLLOWING CALCULATION 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. Let D be the circumference of the circle, and let d be the distance the source moves between the light is emitted and is back at the source. So we have: TIME = DISTANCE TRAVELLED / LIGHT SPEED tf = (D+d)/(c+v) tf = (2*pi*r + tf*v)/(c+v) tf = 2*pi*r/c tb = (D-d)/(c-v) tb = (2*pi*r - tb*v)/(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 aspect of the standard Sagnac explanation that IS related to SR is the fact > that it shows the rays moving at c+/-v wrt the source....impossible according > to SR.... The above IS the standard calculation of SR's prediction for the Sagnac experiment. It is based on the 2. postulate of SR which says that the speed of light is c in the inertial, non-rotating frame, and it says nothing about what the speed of light is in any other frame. But tell me this, Henri. What kind of transformation do you use when you transform the speed of light from inertial non-rotating frame to the non-inertial rotating frame? Can you show me the transform equations? Paul |