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: Henri Wilson on 12 Jun 2005 07:19 On 11 Jun 2005 13:40:05 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 14:07:54 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >> >> >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >> >news:733ga1tlt4ill427arlcotoaop6q3gje56(a)4ax.com: > >> >> I don't want to discuss particles in accelerators or their decay >> >> products. >> > >> >I understand why. >> >> Two reasons. 1) the aparatus constitutes an EM FoR and 2) the >> methods used to measure the OW speeds of Xray and gamma particles >> is suspect. > >No. The reason is that definitive experiments exist disproving >ballistic >theory, and you can only ignore them by inventing ad hoc objections >that you can't even begin to justify. No believable has conflicted with the BaT. All known evidence strongly supports it. > >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 12 Jun 2005 07:29 On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 00:55:19 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:g1fma19utpj2nnti462pm0h6ra4qb6951m(a)4ax.com: > >> On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 14:07:54 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> >> wrote: >> >> >> It certainly does not. It says nothing. > >[quote] >....They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of >small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid >for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good. Which has always worried me. Why should 'the same laws be valid' imply that 'values of quantities' should be the same in all frames? >We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called >the ýPrinciple of Relativityý) to the status of a postulate, and also >introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with >the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a >definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the >emitting body. These two postulates suffice for the attainment of a simple >and consistent theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies based on >Maxwellýs theory for stationary bodies. The introduction of a >ýluminiferous etherý will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view >here to be developed will not require an ýabsolutely stationary spaceý >provided with special properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of >the empty space in which electromagnetic processes take place. > >The theory to be developed is basedýlike all electrodynamicsýon the >kinematics of the rigid body, since the assertions of any such theory have >to do with the relationships between rigid bodies (systems of >co-ordinates), clocks, and electromagnetic processes. Insufficient >consideration of this circumstance lies at the root of the difficulties >which the electrodynamics of moving bodies at present encounters. >[unquote] > >It appears to say quite a bit about the motion of photons and makes no >restrictions on our knowledge of them when they aren't being observed. That my be so... but it doesn't tell us anthing about them, either. >>>And what does BaT say about photons when they aren't being observed? >> >> it says Newton's first law applies when they aren't being >> observed. I suspect is says Newton's second law applies when they aren't >> being observed. > >How and where does it say these things if SR/GR say nothing? My H-aether theory, for instance, allows for photons to change speed during travel. SR says nothing about that. SR merely reiterates the aether principle that OWLS will always be MEASURED as c. >>> >>>I understand why. >> >> Two reasons. 1) the aparatus constitutes an EM FoR > >How do the photons magically KNOW about the EM FoR? >If they don't know, why do they care? Maxwell's two constants when measured inside the apparatus might determine light speed there, (wrt the aparatus itself) .... > >> and 2) the methods >> used to measure the OW speeds of Xray and gamma particles is suspect. > >Accurate OW speed is not required. Just enough to show that no photons faster >than c. It doesn't take much accuracy to show that photons are not traveling >at 1.9 c. It take two clocks though...and that must constitute a TW light speed experiment. 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: George Dishman on 12 Jun 2005 07:38 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:846oa1hkuc3a2ir54thg3eqe16k3l78l35(a)4ax.com... .... >>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. It is an obvious fact that a ray that doesn't land at a point cannot affect the brightness at that point. > I say the two beams move sideways by a different amount when the apparatus > rotates and therefore the angle between them changes They both shift the same way so the angle betwen them doesn't change. ....and so does the path > length. I say that interference fringes also move sideways because of this > movement. The fringes are circles. When we say "the fringes move", it means the radius increases or decreases. Now that you have your Java fixed, have a look at this applet and click the 'evacuate' or 'fill' buttons. It illustrates something different but the effect of filling or evacuating is the same as changing the rotation speed in the Sagnac setup. George
From: The Ghost In The Machine on 12 Jun 2005 10:00 In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson) <H@> wrote on Sun, 12 Jun 2005 11:18:29 GMT <hg6oa15h0rrf3vd91ekt0i07gea4gv7jf3(a)4ax.com>: > 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. Large Hadron Collider, specifically, the synchronization frequency of the beam. > >> >>[.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. -- #191, ewill3(a)earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless.
From: bz on 12 Jun 2005 12:34
H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:nk6oa1lm71u8fm7kt1p6etodtb1d08knpj(a)4ax.com: > On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 00:55:19 +0000 (UTC), bz > <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > >>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>news:g1fma19utpj2nnti462pm0h6ra4qb6951m(a)4ax.com: >> >>> On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 14:07:54 +0000 (UTC), bz >>> <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >>> > >>> >>> It certainly does not. It says nothing. >> >>[quote] >>....They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first >>order of small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics >>will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of >>mechanics hold good. > > Which has always worried me. > Why should 'the same laws be valid' imply that 'values of quantities' > should be the same in all frames? It does NOT so imply. To the contrary. The only 'same value' that applies to all frames is the value of c. >>We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be >>called the ýPrinciple of Relativityý) to the status of a postulate, and >>also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently >>irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated >>in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the >>state of motion of the emitting body. These two postulates suffice for >>the attainment of a simple and consistent theory of the electrodynamics >>of moving bodies based on Maxwellýs theory for stationary bodies. The >>introduction of a ýluminiferous etherý will prove to be superfluous >>inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an >>ýabsolutely stationary spaceý provided with special properties, nor >>assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which >>electromagnetic processes take place. >> >>The theory to be developed is basedýlike all electrodynamicsýon the >>kinematics of the rigid body, since the assertions of any such theory >>have to do with the relationships between rigid bodies (systems of >>co-ordinates), clocks, and electromagnetic processes. Insufficient >>consideration of this circumstance lies at the root of the difficulties >>which the electrodynamics of moving bodies at present encounters. >>[unquote] >> >>It appears to say quite a bit about the motion of photons and makes no >>restrictions on our knowledge of them when they aren't being observed. > > That may be so... but it doesn't tell us anthing about them, either. It says they are expected to move consistent with Maxwell's theory for stationary bodies. >>>>And what does BaT say about photons when they aren't being observed? >>> >>> it says Newton's first law applies when they aren't being >>> observed. I suspect is says Newton's second law applies when they >>> aren't being observed. >> >>How and where does it say these things if SR/GR say nothing? > > My H-aether theory, for instance, allows for photons to change speed > during travel. That appears to be a major problem. Spontainous changes in speed? > SR says nothing about that. > SR merely reiterates the aether principle that OWLS will always be > MEASURED as c. Einstein says light always moves at c. I see no distinction between OW and TW light. >>>>I understand why. >>> >>> Two reasons. 1) the aparatus constitutes an EM FoR >> >>How do the photons magically KNOW about the EM FoR? >>If they don't know, why do they care? > > Maxwell's two constants when measured inside the apparatus might > determine light speed there, (wrt the aparatus itself) Only if Henri needs an excuse to explain the failure to find sub/superluminal photons where everything we know says that they should be found. ..... >>> and 2) the methods >>> used to measure the OW speeds of Xray and gamma particles is suspect. >> >>Accurate OW speed is not required. Just enough to show that no photons >>faster than c. It doesn't take much accuracy to show that photons are >>not traveling at 1.9 c. > > It take two clocks though...and that must constitute a TW light speed > experiment. OW light speed is ONLY needed when we try to invalidate an aether. If one is intellectually honest, the distinction between OWLS and TWLS can not be used as an excuse to avoid admitting that BaT has failed. -- 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 |