OWLS is not equal to c
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What keeps electrons spinning around their nucleus?
Next: Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids
From: The Ghost In The Machine on 6 Jun 2005 11:00 In sci.physics, bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote on Mon, 6 Jun 2005 11:44:49 +0000 (UTC) <Xns966D44A70B5E5WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139>: > H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in > news:30a8a11lhguqj8peohbfp0c25auhismk4r(a)4ax.com: > >> According to the BaT, light will move at c wrt every component in the >> apparatus and therefore the travel time in both directions will be the >> same. >> > > how can it do so when different components are traveling at different > velocities wrt the apparatus. For example, in a paricle accelerator. > > I thought BaT said light will move at c wrt the emitting body irrespective of > the motions of anything else in the universe. No, BaT merely says light moves at c *only* with respect to the emitting body *at* the point of the emission. After that, the photon slows down, speeds up, changes direction, etc. like any other Galilean particle moving at speed c, when encounting gravitational fields and moving observers. In one example, if hot gasses swirling around a black hole are emitting at c, we would measure the photons moving slower than c. However, MMX cannot measure this change. (It wasn't designed to.) -- #191, ewill3(a)earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless.
From: George Dishman on 6 Jun 2005 14:59 "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in message news:v53en2-mnu.ln1(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net... .... > > No, BaT merely says light moves at c *only* with respect to the > emitting body *at* the point of the emission. After that, the > photon slows down, speeds up, changes direction, etc. like > any other Galilean particle moving at speed c, when encounting > gravitational fields and moving observers. > > In one example, if hot gasses swirling around a black hole are > emitting at c, we would measure the photons moving slower than c. > > However, MMX cannot measure this change. (It wasn't designed to.) No, but the Sagnac experiment can. The results are compatible with light moving at c in the lab frame regardless of the speed of the source but not with the ballistic model. There was a long thread on this between Henri and myself a few weeks back. George
From: George Dishman on 6 Jun 2005 15:03 "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:1118057373.138823.150350(a)g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Henri Wilson wrote: > >> Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. > > You ARE a complete failure. Not so Jerry, a few weeks ago Henri posted a Visual Basic program illustration how the Sagnac experiment falsified the Ritzian (ballistic light) model. While there were some details to be resolved, he showed it produced an error of "a factor of about 2". Henri, how is your program development going? Have you got the beams to coincide on the detector yet? George
From: russell on 6 Jun 2005 18:11 shevek4(a)yahoo.com wrote: > russell(a)mdli.com wrote: > > shevek4(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > russell(a)mdli.com wrote: > > > > shevek wrote: > > > > > russell(a)mdli.com wrote: > > > > > > shevek4(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > > > Tom Roberts wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > [snip] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It simply is not possible to measure any sort of one-way speed using a > > > > > > > > single clock. No matter what you do you must arrange for the start and > > > > > > > > stop signals to both reach the clock, and that necessarily involves a > > > > > > > > closed path for the signals. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Would such a thing be possible if you had knowledge (from another > > > > > > > source) of the local rest state of the aether? > > > > > > > > > > > > How? You would still have to synchronize two clocks, or > > > > > > alternatively do a TWLS measurement and infer OWLS from > > > > > > theory. Arguably that inference would seem more natural, > > > > > > but it would still be an inference. > > > > > > > > > > Yes, it would be an inference. Of course if your knowledge of local > > > > > aether flow speed is justified, the inference and measurement of OWLS > > > > > is justified. > > > > > > > > How are you going to measure the local aether flow without > > > > two clocks? You have the same problem. Note that Roberts > > > > said *any* one-way velocity measurement; he wasn't limiting > > > > his comments to light. > > > > > > Good question, I guess this was the point all along of trying to > > > measure OWLS. > > > > > > It doesn't have to be light and clocks.. some kind of sensitive effect > > > on the metric tensor for example, or a quantum mechanical effect. The > > > symmetries of the Lorentz transform do not prove that nobody we cannot > > > know the velocity of the aether. > > > > I think you still missed my point. There is *no* > > way you can eliminate the issue of clocks. > > Prove that! Well, I would almost say even *that* misses the point. It's not yet even in the realm of proof or disproof; it has to do with definitions. To say that something has such-and-such a one-way speed, it means to me that (in principle at least) you can put clock A here, clock B there, mark what A reads when the something passes A and what B reads when the same something passes B, take the difference in times and divide that into the distance by which A and B are separated, and thereby arrive at the claimed value. Do you have a different definition for one-way speed? (I don't just mean a better- stated one, which wouldn't be hard to come up with, but rather one that differs fundamentally from what I just said.) > > > The best > > you can do is state what your synchronization convention > > is, and what the one-way speed of the aether (or light, > > or a bullet, or a standard snail or whatever) is *wrt* > > that convention. > > > > OK, well what this synchronization convention is could depend on other > measurements. Not in any sense that is absolutely dictated to us by nature. That's why the word "convention" is apt. It's a matter of our choice. Nature dictates that some choices will be easier than others, no argument there. > > > Some conventions of course are more natural than others, > > I don't deny that.
From: Henri Wilson on 6 Jun 2005 19:24
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 20:03:15 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote in message >news:1118057373.138823.150350(a)g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >> Henri Wilson wrote: >> >>> Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. >> >> You ARE a complete failure. > >Not so Jerry, a few weeks ago Henri posted a >Visual Basic program illustration how the >Sagnac experiment falsified the Ritzian >(ballistic light) model. While there were >some details to be resolved, he showed it >produced an error of "a factor of about 2". Don't lie George. My program obvioously surprised you because it proved what I wa saying all along. The sagnac effect occurs no matter what light speed is used. It certainly does not prove the BaT wrong. > >Henri, how is your program development going? >Have you got the beams to coincide on the >detector yet? They only coincide when there is no rotation. That's the main principle behind the sagnac effect. .. > >George > HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong. |