GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: Henri Wilson on 18 Sep 2007 18:09 On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 22:51:16 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)guesswhathia.no> wrote: >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. Why that particular non-rotating frame? For instance, why not one moving away from the source? ....oh! I forgot. relativity uses fairies.... >- 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? :-) Refutation by water...after all water is a medium like the aether your SR clearly relies on. >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) clearly you are using here, the light speeds c+v and 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. Of course Paul, :) >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. You didn't use the right approach at all. Light does NOT reflect from moving mirrors at the incident angle and speed. >============================================= > > > > 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. :) Consider a single photon emitted by the source. The source is moving wrt an infinite number of non-rotating frames. Why should the photon's speed magically adjust to c wrt one of them and not another? >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, postulates mean nothing. They require a connection with the physics. >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: Paul B. Andersen on 19 Sep 2007 09:38 Henri Wilson wrote: > On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 22:51:16 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" > <paul.b.andersen(a)guesswhathia.no> wrote: > >> 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) > > clearly you are using here, the light speeds c+v and c-v Not worth a response. The rest of your comments are of the same quality. Yawn. [snip] Paul
From: George Dishman on 19 Sep 2007 14:27 "Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:mu1ue39q8o70in40o5nlscpev3eg6jl4l5(a)4ax.com... > 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. Yes, in a conventional depiction you could show the waveform with the y-axis representing colour. >> 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? If not there would be a beat and you would get a sine wave envelope. What I have described so far matches your "moving oboe" analogy. > ..and you cannot just remove the envelope... ..the 'ends' taper off to > zero > anyway. Yes, it is that envelope shape with its tapering ends is moving across the screen. We'll get to that later. >>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. Good, I'm trying to break it into factors where we can agree each separtely and you can see how they combine. >>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... No, in the frame in which it is drawn. >>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. If you look it up on the web, you should be able to find the Fourier Transform of your envelope. You might have some luck if you look up "windowing functions" in the DSP (digital signal processing) field as they are crucial in handling non-repetitive waveforms. > ....think of a photon as something like a pulsting water > droplet...distorted > into a pointed cigar shape. Sure, but then you Fourier transform it to find the components. >>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.... It is the mirror that moves at c+v, the pretty pattern behind it is irrelevant, and without another mirror following behind, you need continuous power from the source. The whole thing is nuts, but you could learn a lot about Fourier analysis by ignoring that flaw and working through the maths. Most of it you can find done for you on the web. George
From: Henri Wilson on 20 Sep 2007 18:35 On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 19:18:56 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >news:s20ue3lfkcp17gjprcp927lcooon375t0s(a)4ax.com... >> On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 05:05:54 -0700, George Dishman >>>> 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, ... > >The average speed is greater (a) because the light >is shielded from the slowing influence of the >sunlight at p and (b) because it is pushed towards >Earth by the reflected light at q. It is not just sunlight that causes the slowing...... >> ... then the time taken will be >> longer. > >Since the speed is increased, it arrives earlier. > >>>> >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. > >It is trivial and you can't find anything wrong >with my analysis which is why you try to snip it >hoping I won't notice. The planet doesn't shield ALL the light 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 > >The displacement is 0.01%, negligible compared >to the filter bandwidth. There is no error. I think you are ignoring the ADoppler component. >>>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 > >An excuse for failure isn't a success. The challenge >you face is to prove ADoppler exists. Inventing excuses >for its absence gets you no farther forward. George, ADoppler produces most variable star curves... I think that is pretty good evidence don't you.... >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: George Dishman on 21 Sep 2007 03:00
On 20 Sep, 23:35, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote: > On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 19:18:56 +0100, "George Dishman" <geo...(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:s20ue3lfkcp17gjprcp927lcooon375t0s(a)4ax.com... > >> On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 05:05:54 -0700, George Dishman > >>>> 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, ... > > >The average speed is greater (a) because the light > >is shielded from the slowing influence of the > >sunlight at p and (b) because it is pushed towards > >Earth by the reflected light at q. > > It is not just sunlight that causes the slowing...... Whatever, if it is shielded by the planet, it no longer causes slowing and the light arrive earlier. > >> ... then the time taken will be > >> longer. > > >Since the speed is increased, it arrives earlier. > > >>>> >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. > > >It is trivial and you can't find anything wrong > >with my analysis which is why you try to snip it > >hoping I won't notice. > > The planet doesn't shield ALL the light George. Whatever, if _any_ is shielded by the planet, it no longer causes slowing and the light arrive earlier. > >>>> >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 > > >The displacement is 0.01%, negligible compared > >to the filter bandwidth. There is no error. > > I think you are ignoring the ADoppler component. The 0.01% shift could be ADoppler or VDopppler or any mix, it doesn't matter. For K band from 2.0um to 2.4um, the shift is 0.2nm to 0.24nm which is negligible compared to the 400um width. > >>>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 > > >An excuse for failure isn't a success. The challenge > >you face is to prove ADoppler exists. Inventing excuses > >for its absence gets you no farther forward. > > George, ADoppler produces most variable star curves... Nope, you have proved there is no ADoppler for pulsars or contact binaries and if you ever analyses Cepheids properly, you wil find the temperature and radius variation accounts for all of the observed luminosity variation, there is no ADoppler observed _ever_. > I think that is pretty > good evidence don't you.... Yes, it strongly suggests ADoppler doesn't exist because it should be dominant pulsars and contact binaries and at least significant in Cepheids yet none is seen. It is academic though since ballistic theory is already falsified by Sagnac, the Shapiro Delay, Fizeau and others. George |