GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: sean on 23 Sep 2007 11:16 On 14 Sep, 15:23, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.ander...(a)hiadeletethis.no> wrote: > sean wrote: > > On 12 Sep, 08:03, "Paul B. Andersen" > > <paul.b.ander...(a)hiadeletethis.no> wrote: > >> Henri Wilson wrote: > >>> Sagnac is very complicated. > >> Sagnac isn't complicated at all. > >> It is however bothering to you, since it falsifies emission theory. > > I agree that Henri seems to not be able to understand sagnac very > > well. But I think your wrong when you say sagnac falsifies > > emmision theory. If you look at any claim that it does and > > study the so called proof by relativists on how it falsifies > > emmision theory. > > Youll notice that the paths of both beams are incorrectly > > calculated which in turn give the false impression that there > > is no path difference for emmision theory vis a vis sagnac. > > Notice any simulation of emmision theory in the lab frame > > for sagnac INCORRECTLY shows the light as travelling in > > straight lines in the lab frame. > > Which laws of nature do you invoke to make > the light go in curved paths in an inertial frame? :-) > (The effects of gravity are negligible in Sagnac) Which laws of nature do *you* invoke to make light go in curved lines in the source frame? > > For emmision theory this is incorrect as it must be straight > > in the source frame(like MMx) And if you bothered doing a > > simple calculation youd see that a straight line in a > > rotating source frame gives a galilean transformation to > > a curved line in a lab frame where the source rotates. > > Something relativists fail to take into account when > > trying to falsely prove taht emmision theory cannot model sagnac > > You got it backwards. > When pictured in the rotating frame, the path of > the light beam going with the rotation is slightly > concave while the other one is slightly convex. > In this frame the light is according to the emission > theory going at c, so it is the difference in > the path-lengths that must be responsible for any > difference in the times. There is a difference, > but it is order of magnitudes too small to account > for the first-order Sagnac effect. I have what backwards? Clarify this vague statement If you look at my sagnac 3 sim at http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb you can see that this is a source frame where the source does not rotate. THat is the setup rotates around the still source. In the sagnac 2 sim Ive also supplied at the site above,.. I have shown the same info as sagnac 3 but rotated around the source so the source AND setup are not moving on the screen and the light source paths curve instead. THis is what I assume you may be referring to as.. a ROTATING frame above? If so notice that although its very subtle the beam that travels with the rotation is slightly concave and the beam opposing the rotation is slightly convex. As you requested. And it is fatuous of you to claim the magnitudes are too small to account for the observed effects. Not least because A) you havent calculated what emmision theory DOES calculate what the magnitude should be and.. B) You havent calculated what magnitude the observed shift in sagnac is observed to be,... to compare to emmision theories predictions. > > Sagnac falsifies emission theory. > No question about it. So far you have supplied no evidence to back up this claim. Wheras Ive supplied mathematical proof that emmision theory CAN explain sagnac. Simply .. a correct simulation of sagnac shows that light at c in the source frame travels farther on one path then the other. Which gives a path difference.. and which in turn gives observed fringe shift. Sean www.gammarayburst.com
From: sean on 23 Sep 2007 11:25 On 16 Sep, 00:09, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote: > On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 16:23:32 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" > > > > > > <paul.b.ander...(a)hiadeletethis.no> wrote: > >sean wrote: > >> On 12 Sep, 08:03, "Paul B. Andersen" > >> <paul.b.ander...(a)hiadeletethis.no> wrote: > >>> Henri Wilson wrote: > >>>> Sagnac is very complicated. > >>> Sagnac isn't complicated at all. > >>> It is however bothering to you, since it falsifies emission theory. > >> I agree that Henri seems to not be able to understand sagnac very > >> well. But I think your wrong when you say sagnac falsifies > >> emmision theory. If you look at any claim that it does and > >> study the so called proof by relativists on how it falsifies > >> emmision theory. > >> Youll notice that the paths of both beams are incorrectly > >> calculated which in turn give the false impression that there > >> is no path difference for emmision theory vis a vis sagnac. > >> Notice any simulation of emmision theory in the lab frame > >> for sagnac INCORRECTLY shows the light as travelling in > >> straight lines in the lab frame. > > >Which laws of nature do you invoke to make > >the light go in curved paths in an inertial frame? :-) > >(The effects of gravity are negligible in Sagnac) > > >> For emmision theory this is incorrect as it must be straight > >> in the source frame(like MMx) And if you bothered doing a > >> simple calculation youd see that a straight line in a > >> rotating source frame gives a galilean transformation to > >> a curved line in a lab frame where the source rotates. > >> Something relativists fail to take into account when > >> trying to falsely prove taht emmision theory cannot model sagnac > > >You got it backwards. > >When pictured in the rotating frame, the path of > >the light beam going with the rotation is slightly > >concave while the other one is slightly convex. > >In this frame the light is according to the emission > >theory going at c, so it is the difference in > >the path-lengths that must be responsible for any > >difference in the times. There is a difference, > >but it is order of magnitudes too small to account > >for the first-order Sagnac effect. > > Sean is a little confused about sagnac. For one thing his animation shows the > two rays ending up at different angles when in fact they remain parallel...or This is irelevent. To start with you dont know what the beams actually do in the experiment as all we observed is a fringe shift . So technically anythings possible and everythings assumed regarding sagnac and any theory. Secondly from my sims it is a 90 degree arrival angle between the 2 > they do IF IT IS ASSUMED THTAT THEY REFLECT FROM THE MOVING MIRRORS AT THE > INCIDENT ANGLES AND SPEEDS.....which they don't..... > > There IS a path length difference that I think is 1/2*root2 times the claimed > one. Additionally, two rays that start out 90 apart end up displaced > sideways...that might not cause a fringe shift...but that is not certain. This is imagined on your part. My sims clearly show path difference. Thats obvious from just looking at them. Notice how sagnac 1,2 or 3 all have one path ending short of the detector then the other. Its so obvious Im amazed you pretend otherwise. Sean
From: Dono on 23 Sep 2007 15:06 On Sep 23, 8:16 am, sean <jaymose...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > So far you have supplied no evidence to back up this claim. > Wheras Ive supplied mathematical proof that emmision theory CAN > explain sagnac. Simply .. a correct simulation > of sagnac shows that light at c in the source frame travels > farther on one path then the other. Which gives a path > difference.. Ummm,no. It is really simple , Shawn : The forward light beam "chases" the Sagnac disc at the "ballistic" speed c+v, while the disc moves forward at speed v, so: tf*(c+v) =2*pi*r + tf*v meaning that : tf = 2*pi*r/c Likewise, the beam that moves in the opposite direction with c-v, satisfies the motion equation: tb*(c-v) = 2*pi*r - tb*v so: tb = 2*pi*r/c delta_t = tf - tb = 0 Different variations of this simple computation have been explained to you countless times. As to your "simulation", it follows the GiGo principle :-)
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 23 Sep 2007 17:23 On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 00:00:25 -0700, George Dishman <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >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... >> >> 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. This is too speculative... >> >>>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. how can temperature be determined from a 0.01% shift? It can't... >> >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_. Your belief system requires that you accept that.... >> 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. Fizeau proves SR wrong.... >George Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 23 Sep 2007 17:47
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 19:27:25 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"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. The concept of 'field strength' in space is a rather nebulous thing. An electric field is a mathematical construct that describes how unit charge would ACCELERATE if placed in that field at a certain point. ....but in what direction would the charge accelerate? Would it move towards the origin or towards the point of maximum opposite field. The graph we normally see drawn with Maxwell's concept of EM is pretty useless if you think about it. >>> 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. Except that the oboe will change length during an acceleration. >> ..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. ....but the velocity of the intrinsic wave wrt the 'package' isn't ncesssarily related to the speed of the package itself...wrt anything... ....or maybe there IS some kind of not very obvious connection that needs explaining.... >>>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 I'm not sure what you re getting at. In the photon frame there are two waves traveling in oposite directions. >>>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. ....but that has nothing to do with he speed of the waves relative to anything external. >>>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. I don't know what you are talking about. What mirror? 'c+v' wrt what? >George > Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm |