GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: George Dishman on 28 Sep 2007 14:13 "Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:t1mdf39u8vfeq7iag22760e0b0c7d95u1h(a)4ax.com... > 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... "Sunlight is blocked by planets." You think that is speculative? Unbelievable. >>> >>>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... Don't try to pretend to be that stupid Henry, even you know better. >>> >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.... Nope, the fact that the area changes by 26% and the luminosity by 35% (IIRC) tells me that is the dominant effect in K band. There is a small residual in the standard analysis which confirms it, and that residual is what you should model with your program. >>> 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.... Wrong again Henry. Oh I nearly forgot, you are just parroting Renshaw's crank site, it is actually he who is wrong. George
From: George Dishman on 28 Sep 2007 15:10 "sean" <jaymoseley(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1190813512.203381.17300(a)w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... On 14 Sep, 15:22, "George Dishman" <geo...(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > "sean" <jaymose...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message What a long post you made. I personally would trim alot of your post to shorten my reply but then youd accuse me of trimming "important points". I was in a rush but there's a lot of duplication. I'll trim this considerably and if you like point out any other parts you would like me to cover and I'll reply separately. Note - snipping does not imply my agreement in this case. Another point, you may have used an unusual character but for whatever reason the text hasn't indented on my newsreader. There's too much to do it manually so I'll put [GD:] before my replies and [S:] before your text. > news:1188512224.511353.237820(a)i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > > > On 21 Aug, 23:30, "George Dishman" <geo...(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >> "sean" <jaymose...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > It would make everything so much easier if you just did a sim of > > sagnac in the source frame. > > I don't think it would help at this stage but > I will try to extend the animation of Mars and > Earth to include the alternative views of Ritz, > Henry and SR and that should clear it up. It > won't be for a few days though. [S:] Im not sure what you mean by `extend`. [GD:] I meant add more panels with the planets moving the same way seen by the same observer but the light moving as described by the various theories. [S:] But a source frame sim *would* help. Because it would make you realize that any correct simulation of light at c in the source frame (emmision)always has to have light `dragging` in any other frame. Whether you, I or anyone else likes it or not. In fact if you think about it your sean planets sim does just this. [GD:] I know, that's why doing another is pointless. [S:] It proves that a correctly calculated source frame sim with light at c in the source frame does give ` this drag` effect. So it seems a bit perverse for you to prove tyat it does give drag and then you claim when I use this drag effect to explain sagnac that it cant give drag?! [GD:] I don't say it doesn't give a drag, I say you haven't drawn rays to a single point in your sim so it doesn't tell us anything. Sort the diagram and then we can discuss the implications. <snip> > In the meantime I think you should address the error > in your own sims, to work out the phase difference for > any given point on the screen, you need to show the > two paths that meet at that point but the paths in > your diagrams do not meet on the screen. [S:] THis is your mistake. To start with Ive calculated one theoretical thin line for illustration purposes, not a beam with thickness. But in fact any beam isnt one theoretically infinitely thin line Therefore any beam with a width, will in fact show an overlap at the detector. [GD:] Yes I drew that for you ages ago: http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Sean/Sean_beam.png My point is that the one thin line (called a 'ray') that you need to pick out within the beam is the one that goes to the detector. You need two rays, one in each direction, both hitting the same point on the screen to find out what the phase difference is _at_that_point_. [S:] So if I were or you were to do several calculations using two lines one defining each edge of the beam then there would be overlap. And as all lines are the same coherent source then interefernce patterns will result. [GD:] Right, but to find the intereference effect at any chosen point, draw two lines _both_ ending on the same point and then calculate the time difference along the lines. That aspect has nothing to do with your theory, it is just a simple drawing error. <big snip> > There are two problems at the moment, the major one > being that you have light moving in curved paths for > an un-accelerated observer. That is clearly wrong > and we need to resolve that first. If you correct the > error in your sims, you should find that the change > of model makes no difference, the apparent phase > difference you have at the moment is only due to the > sim error. [S:] This is rubbish and an unsubstantiated smear. The fact is that even YOU have proven that my sims are correct. Because your sean planet sims give the same results. [GD:] I'll snip most of this because it is covered in this reply: http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.astro/msg/17faf6b8eb04df6a Give that some careful consideration. [S:] That is your sim also shows that light at c in the source frame only, as emmision theory predicts, DOES give a drag. Just the same results that my sims show!!! So what are you saying ... that YOUR sean planets sim is incorrectly calculated? You must be, because your sean planets sims are giving the same result as my 3 sagnac sims, which you claim are incorrectly calculated. Make up your mind. Your sim and mine give identical results. So either they are both wrong or both right. [GD:] They both correctly represent what I think you are saying, but I think your suggestion is not sensible. A ball thrown at me won't be dragged round if you turn after throwing it and neither will the laser pulse. <snip> > What everyone except you uses is the principle that > light in vacuo other than gravitational bending) will > travel in straight lines as seen by an unaccelerated > observer AFTER it is omitted. The question of the > speed at which it travels is separate from the > direction. [S:] By `unnaccelerated` I assume this includes any frame that isnt the source frame. [GD:] No. It is any frame where an observer holding a gyroscope and an accelerometer would see both instruments reading zero all the time during the experiment. Basically someone floating in deep space who _doesn't_ fire his jetpack. Does that somewhat tongue-in-cheek explanation make it clearer? <snip> [S:] .... So please tell me what you think .... Did Ritz argue for light at c+-v in the sagnac lab frame and light at variable speed in the source frame,.. or was he arguing what Im ( and your sean planet sim) arguing. Which is light at c in the source frame and light at variable c in the sagnac lab frame? [GD:] See the table, Ritz said the light was _emitted_ at c in the source frame but, like everyone else, it then moves in a straight line as seen by any unaccelerated observer. Your version is unique in suggesting the lateral 'drag' effect: > > In which case > > your Sean planets sim is also a Ritz planets sim. > > No, and that's why I need to draw something to explain > the various views. Maybe I can summarise in text. For > a source moving at speed u in the direction of the > light emitted but therafter moving in a curved path: > > Ritz speed is c+u, constant path is straight > Sean speed starts as c+u, variable path is curved > Henry speed starts as c+u, variable path is straight > SR speed is c, constant path is straight > > Does that help? [S:] For starters please leave henris arguments out. [GD:] No, the point is that you should understand _all_ the ideas being discussed because I am fed up telling you things you should be able to figure out for yourself. <big snip> [S:] OK you try to substantiate SR in another frame . Ill stick with the source frame observations. That way I dont have to speculate what will be observed. I can actually cite whats observed. And that is that in MMx, light is definitely observed to travel at c in the source frame. [GD:] Not true, what is observed is that the time taken for the two legs is equal, nothing more. In fact oif the paths were curved in the source frame, the two legs would still take the same time because the curvature would be the same on both legs. Your claim that it is straight in that frame is a speculation. > I have told you many times, your rays don't meet on > the screen. The brightness at any point depends on > rays that meet at that point, not ones that go > elsewhere. [S:] And I have told you many times that were the beams calculated with width then they would overlap. As indeed they are observed to in sagnac. So you still have no substantiating proof to show that my simulations are incorrectly calculated. [GD:] You are still missing the point, to calculate the phase difference ant any point X, you need the times along the two rays which both end up at X. Drawing light doesn't tell us an answer. <snip> > > Does MMx measure they speed of the earth around the sun? > > Not that Im aware of. Otherwise there would be no null result > > observed. > > It was built to measure that. The null answer > was unexpected. [S:] Exactly. Didnt I just finish saying that MMx gives a null result which is not whats expected if it were able to measure the earths speed around the sun? [GD:] NO, have another read of what you said. You said the MMx doesn't measure the speed, not that it measures it and gives zero for the answer. [S:] Wow, you are contrary. I say something, you then say no Im wrong and then contradict yourself and proceed to say that what I just said is in fact correct.! [GD:] Take more care over what you write. <big snip> > > Wel its too big a topic to incorporate here, ... > > I agree, this post is already far too long. [S:] Cut out the whole post if you want in your next reply. All I need is for you to say whether or not you agree that the MMx observations are consistent with the prediction that light travels at c in the source (MMxlab) frame. [GD:] They are consistent with: * light moves at c in the source frame * light moves at c in the lab frame * light moves as described by SR but the MMx does not distinguish which of those is correct. [S:] And if you dont agree ,..Ill need you to explain why MMx observations are not consistent with light travelling on both paths in the source frame. You will find it impossible to rule this out Im afraid. Which is why you nor anyone else can bring themselves to admit here on the net that in MMx the observations are consistent with light travelling at c on both paths in the source/lab frame. Because if you do youll have to admit that a theory where light travels at c in the source frame only can also explain sagnac. [GD:] That doesn't follow but let's leave that discussion for the moment. OK, I'll snip everything else, the post drifts off onto other subjects and I think it better to come back to them another time. I'll keep the message flagged in my newsreader though. George
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 28 Sep 2007 19:10 On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 19:13:55 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >news:t1mdf39u8vfeq7iag22760e0b0c7d95u1h(a)4ax.com... >> 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... > >"Sunlight is blocked by planets." You think that >is speculative? Unbelievable. > >>>> >>>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... > >Don't try to pretend to be that stupid Henry, even >you know better. > >>>> >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.... > >Nope, the fact that the area changes by 26% and >the luminosity by 35% (IIRC) tells me that is >the dominant effect in K band. pure speculation...it doesn't happen. > >There is a small residual in the standard analysis >which confirms it, and that residual is what you >should model with your program. > >>>> 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.... > >Wrong again Henry. Oh I nearly forgot, you are >just parroting Renshaw's crank site, it is >actually he who is wrong. And Sagnac also proves SR wrong. >George > Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
From: George Dishman on 29 Sep 2007 04:45 "Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:hb2rf3hpkqi1ml3heo5jb25uggoso2v904(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 19:13:55 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: [regarding ESO's measurement of the radius of L Car:] >>.. the fact that the area changes by 26% and >>the luminosity by 35% (IIRC) tells me that is >>the dominant effect in K band. > > pure speculation...it doesn't happen. Pure measurement, and ballistic theory says the method is valid. I told you of this several weeks ago so you have had ample time to look for a flaw and you have found none. Stop whining and deal with it. George
From: George Dishman on 29 Sep 2007 09:23
"Clueless Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:5amdf3tiaiqgth380f9kmevr70ce8a62ss(a)4ax.com... > 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... >>> >>>>> 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. The definition of a field is not nebulous in any sense at all. I already gave you the definition which you essentially just repeated. > ...but in what direction would the charge accelerate? Would it move > towards the > origin or towards the point of maximum opposite field. The field at any point is a vector, the charge accelerates in the direction specified by the value of the field. As you said, the value is how the charge would accelerate which is a vector divided by the charge which is scalar giving a vector result. > 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. For a philosopher perhaps, but if you understand the principles of physics, the value of the field tells you everything you need to know. However, we seem to be off on a tangent when you look back at the context qupoted above. >>>> 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. Your diagram illustrates constant velocity and I was discussing that. Once you analyse that, you could apply an acceleration and it would make predictions. >>> ..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... Right, it is most probable the speed of the underlying waves would need to be much higher and the observed speed is the smaller fractional difference between the speeds of the left and right propagating parts. > ...or maybe there IS some kind of not very obvious connection that needs > explaining.... It is close to a beat but more complex. >>>>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. I was agreeing. In the frame of the photon, the envelope doesn't propagate, it essentially _is_ the photon, however what I said is true in the frame from which you drew the illustration. > In the photon frame there are two waves traveling in oposite directions. That is also true in the frame of the illustration but there is an anisotropy, probably in the speeds, which results in the motion of the envelope. >>>>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. No, it has to do with frequencies. Your illustration doesn't have a single "absolute" frequency or wavelength as you described in other posts, it is a continuum of frequencies. >>>>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? Your pattern needs waves moving in both directions. The "mirror" is whatever you propose reflects the the wave going away from the source back towards it. You haven't said anything about that yet. "c+v" is the normal sense of the phrase in ballistic theory, the speed at which the measurable energy conveyed by the packet travels. The envelope that you have drawn is what moves at c+v in ballistic theory, not the underlying sine waves from which it is constructed. George |