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: bz on 6 Jun 2005 19:50 The Ghost In The Machine <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in news:v53en2-mnu.ln1(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net: > 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. ok. > 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. How would you compare this to SR/GR photons? > 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.) Henri keeps saying that photons emitted by particles moving near c in a particle accelerator won't show c'=c+v because of [insert hand waving here]. I want a real explaination, not hand waving. -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
From: Henri Wilson on 6 Jun 2005 20:12 On 6 Jun 2005 04:29:33 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On 1 Jun 2005 14:57:25 -0700, "Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" >> <sbharris(a)ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> >We've had some people arguing that one way speed of light velocities >> >from stars are dithered by the extinction and re-radiation effects of >> >passage through atmospheres. This turns out to be an OLD argument that >> >goes all the way back to Ritz in about 1913. Experiments in the 1960's >> >disproved it finally by using gamma rays, which are not absorbed >> >re-radiated, and thus retain their initial speed, whatever that is. And >> >that turns out to be c, even if the gammas come from very fast objects. >> >Conclusion: Einstein was right. >> >> You Silly twisted boy! > >(sigh) >Download Filipas and Fox and -read- it. All of your objections >are answered. You have nothing to stand on. >http://imaginary_nematode.home.comcast.net/Filippas_Fox_1964.pdf You don't really think that experiment proves anything do you? It contains so many asumptions it could produce any answers you can name. > >> Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. > >You ARE a complete failure. Silly boy! > >> The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong. > >Jerry 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.
From: Henri Wilson on 6 Jun 2005 20:21 On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 15:00:05 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote: >In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson) ><H@> > wrote >on Mon, 06 Jun 2005 10:55:55 GMT ><0ha8a1lchmt5u3o3cedvslp5tf2uermhn0(a)4ax.com>: >> On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 01:00:07 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine >> <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote: >> >>>In sci.physics, Sam Wormley >>><swormley1(a)mchsi.com> >>> wrote >>>on Sat, 04 Jun 2005 03:39:14 GMT >> >>>>> >>>>> All meter definitions are currently based on lightspeed. >>>>> There is, of course, a good reason for this, but it does >>>>> make the above somewhat self-defeating. >>>> >>>> Since distance is defined by light speed... you are essentially >>>> condemning *all* measurements of the speed of light as self- >>>> defeating? >>> >>>It's a bit problematic to measure lightspeed by defining the meter >>>in terms of lightspeed. >> >> This is quite funny really. >> >> Which light speed are you referring to? > >The light speed that is used in the definition of the length unit being >used to measure lightspeed. The interferometers used as standards work on TWLS. So do surveyor's theodolites. When all parts of the experiment are mutually at rest, TWLS = OWLS = c. That is correct according to the BaT but not any other theory. The method is universally accepted.... and it works. > >> >> You cannot use OWLS because it has no particular value. > >OWLS has a value. It depends on the emission method. >SR states flatly that it's always c. BaT, presumably, >states otherwise. However, I'd have to see the details, >and in any event it still depends on the movement of the >measurement device with the emitter, and any gravfields >in between. The effect os gravity are very small and can be ignored in all practical situations. Otherwise what you say is correct. OWLS=TWLS=C when everything is mutually at rest. > >> >> Distance can be meaured with TWLS because it IS >> effectively constant in most practical situations. >> If that were not true, surveying would be in chaos. > >Surveying rarely requires anything more than a few parts >per million. It is extremely accurate. >> >> OWLS=TWLS=C, if everything is mutually at rest. > >And *only* if everything is mutually at rest, and in a relatively >strain-free space, in BaT. SR says OLWS=TWLS always. > >Which is right? SR says OWLS=TWLS only if clocks are E-synched. Einstein was unwittingly correct in this because E-synching is absolute synching. 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.
From: Henri Wilson on 6 Jun 2005 20:24 On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 11:44:49 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >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. The above statement refered to experiments in which all components are mutually at rest. > >I thought BaT said light will move at c wrt the emitting body irrespective of >the motions of anything else in the universe. It does. What's wrong with that? Incidentally, a decaying particle cannot be assumed to constitute a normal source. 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.
From: Henri Wilson on 6 Jun 2005 20:25
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 19:59:48 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"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. Don't tell lies George. > >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. |