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: Jerry on 12 Jun 2005 04:15 russell(a)mdli.com wrote: > I think the crux here is that Lorentz aether contracts > physical objects, while in GGT the aether is presumed > to expand them. So the two aethers are not compatible; > GGT and LET are not the same theory. GGT is supposed to respresent a semiclassical aether theory that resembles LET except that it "allows for the possibility of absolute simultaneity." Now that you mention it, the first equation of GGT is identical to the corresponding equation of LET, but the second equation makes no sense to me: t = g^-1*t_0 Well, OK, maybe I'm misreading the paper and got the frames reversed, but then the first equation doesn't make sense, which I think is your point. Jerry
From: The Ghost In The Machine on 12 Jun 2005 05:00 In sci.physics, David Evens <devens(a)technologist.com> wrote on Sun, 12 Jun 2005 02:23:19 -0400 <15lna158jrt84arh2aghuat6n692rocuuk(a)4ax.com>: > On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 09:28:16 GMT, H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote: >>On 6 Jun 2005 20:56:06 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >>>Henri Wilson wrote: >>>> On 6 Jun 2005 04:29:33 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >>>> >You ARE a complete failure. >>>> >>>> Silly boy! >>> >>>Why do you automatically assume that I'm male? Like my real >>>name, "Jerry" is gender-ambiguous. It is a common diminutive >>>for Geraldine. Ever heard of supermodel Jerry Hall? >>> >>>Pig. >> >>We don't have any girls here. They can't understand physics. > > To quote an old movie with some actors in it who show themselves to be > far better than some of their more recent material, > > "That's universally stupid!" Besides, any women around here aren't girls anyway. :-) They're women. So Henri is right, in a very weird sense...though there's the possibility of an underage girl lurking out there trying to make sense of all this. (Then again, one of my college roomies was quite insistent that a girl becomes a woman at first menarche. This is admittedly a philosophical point best discussed elsewhere.) As for universal stupidity, Henri has yet to answer why the LHC designers decided to use a 11.2455 kHz reference instead of about a 1.3787 MHz one, and insists -- for some reason -- that a Cepheid variable is actually an eclipsing binary, with orbital parameters that would merge the two stars. (There's a fair number of others but those two will do for a start.) -- #191, ewill3(a)earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless.
From: Henri Wilson on 12 Jun 2005 07:14 On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 18:54:20 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >news:fd2ga1h0pcl0lseak2v7oa4i8r4gcbqvs3(a)4ax.com... >> On Wed, 8 Jun 2005 22:21:16 +0100, "George Dishman" >> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >> wrote: >> >>> >>>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >>>news:9lm9a1l02h33pl4fqg4cf7aurvk5etiho7(a)4ax.com... >>>> On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 20:03:15 +0100, "George Dishman" >>>> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>... 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. >>> >>>Not really, you were working towards something >>>that matched my own but you said it would take >>>some time and we left the conversation there. >>>I expect that when you complete it you will >>>find you get the same as me but you need to >>>correct the angles so that the beams both hit >>>the same point and then we can look at the >>>speeds you are using. >> >> My beams do hit the same point when there is no rotation. > >They need to meet at all rotation speeds. Henri, >maybe you are misunderstanding what I'm saying, >there are two ways you could take it. I'm not >saying that a beam will bend to get to the right >place or something like that. A source has a >finite beam width which means, if you like, that >photons come out like droplets from a shower. >If you stand under it you get wet but the path >of the drops that hit you depends on where you >stand. The path of any particular drop doesn't >change to hit you because you move though. > >>>> 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. >>> >>>I thought you had grasped how an interferometer >>>worked during our chat. The intensity at any >>>point on the screen (or whatever other detector >>>is used) depends on the amplitudes and relative >>>phase of the two beams falling on that point. >>>It should be obvious that a ray landing elsewhere >>>cannot change the intensity at that point. >> >> I dont think that is the whole story at all. I reckon the divergence of >> the >> beams has as much to do with it than path length difference. >> Huygens principle has no QM basis. > >For a macroscopic effect like an interferometer, >the probability of an individual photon hitting >a point on the screen is directly related to the >intensity found using Huygens method. A classical >analysis is entirely appropriate. Still, the >option is there for you to try a QM analysis if >you think it might give you a solution. > >>>It's quite simple to work out the numbers because >>>the legs are equal so each reflection point is >>>90 degrees plus 1/4 of the overall angle moved by >>>the detector between emission and reception. This >>>applet shows the beam paths: >>> >>>http://www.briar.demon.co.uk/Henri/SagnacAngles.html >> >> I don't agree that they meet when the thing is rotating, according to >> either >> theory... > >If you consider a photon which would have hit >the point if the equipment then perhaps it >won't hit the same location if it is rotating. >However, some other photon will hit it otherwise >you see no light at all, never mind fringes. It >is the path of whatever photon reaches the point >that interests us. That is your approach to this. I say the two beams move sideways by a different amount when the apparatus rotates and therefore the angle between them changes...and so does the path length. I say that interference fringes also move sideways because of this movement. > >>>If I get some time, I intend to animate this to >>>match your format but it won't be soon, sorry. >> >> Time is becoming quite a problem, I'm afraid. > >I share the problem. > >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.
From: Henri Wilson on 12 Jun 2005 07:17 On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 09:00:04 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote: >In sci.physics, David Evens ><devens(a)technologist.com> > wrote >>>>Why do you automatically assume that I'm male? Like my real >>>>name, "Jerry" is gender-ambiguous. It is a common diminutive >>>>for Geraldine. Ever heard of supermodel Jerry Hall? >>>> >>>>Pig. >>> >>>We don't have any girls here. They can't understand physics. >> >> To quote an old movie with some actors in it who show themselves to be >> far better than some of their more recent material, >> >> "That's universally stupid!" > >Besides, any women around here aren't girls anyway. :-) They're women. >So Henri is right, in a very weird sense...though there's the >possibility of an underage girl lurking out there trying to make >sense of all this. > >(Then again, one of my college roomies was quite insistent that >a girl becomes a woman at first menarche. This is admittedly >a philosophical point best discussed elsewhere.) > >As for universal stupidity, Henri has yet to answer why the LHC >designers decided to use a 11.2455 kHz reference instead of >about a 1.3787 MHz one, and insists -- for some reason -- that >a Cepheid variable is actually an eclipsing binary, with >orbital parameters that would merge the two stars. Ghost, will you get it into your head that I NEVER CLAIMED ANYTHING OF THE SORT. Eclipsing binaries are a separate entity. Don't lie about me again please Ghost. > >(There's a fair number of others but those two will do for a start.) 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 12 Jun 2005 07:18
On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 15:00:03 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote: >In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson) ><H@> > wrote >on Thu, 09 Jun 2005 09:29:55 GMT ><ju2ga152025kp0be7sumf9ghogsot0clmu(a)4ax.com>: >> On 6 Jun 2005 21:33:49 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> >>>Henri Wilson wrote: >>>> On 6 Jun 2005 04:29:33 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >>> >>>> >(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. >>> >>>>From the nature of your response, it is obvious that >>>you are incapable of providing valid criticism of the >>>experimental setup or understanding the math. Hence >>>you resort to rhetoric, hoping that nobody notices >>>the complete emptiness of your words. >> >> SRians are desperate for anything that might even remotely support their >> illogical pseudo-aether theory. > >I'd like to see your calculations on LHC, please. SR explains >the specs well; what can BaT furnish there? I have forgotten what LHC is. > >[.sigsnip] 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. |