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 18:57 On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 16:34:53 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:nk6oa1lm71u8fm7kt1p6etodtb1d08knpj(a)4ax.com: > >> >> 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. strange, that! I think I will prefer not to believe it. > >>>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. OK, we measure Maxwell's two constants and calculate c wrt us. How do you know that a differently moving observer at the same point gets the same values for those constants? How do you know if the 'c' we calculated applies to light other than that which is emitted by sources in our frame? You don't. > >>>>>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? They are spontaneous changes but need not be rapid ones. They can be small and take place over hundreds of LYs. > >> 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. Speed must be specified as relative. Einstein's statement is meaningless. > >>>>>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. They can be found in remote space, quite easily. Nobody has looked for them. >> 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. You don't understand the difference. There is no proof that light will take the same time to go from A to B as from B to A. Einstein postulated that it does...then he concocted a method of synching clocks so that the two times MUST be the same, by definition. He used circular logic to try to prove his own postulate. In actual fact, OWLS and TWLS ARE the same when all components are at mutually rest. That is what the BaT says. If you agree with this then you are supporting the BaT because SR claims the opposite. It says you cannot absolutely synch two separated clocks in order to perform a OW light speed experiment because that requires sending a light signal back the other way......but if you use E-synching, you always end up with tAB=tBA. I feel a great sense of satisfaction in having straightened out Einstein's misconception. 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: bz on 12 Jun 2005 19:50 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:heepa1ddikcv2lu40ap0hgr3edia2usgso(a)4ax.com: > On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 16:34:53 +0000 (UTC), bz > <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > >>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>news:nk6oa1lm71u8fm7kt1p6etodtb1d08knpj(a)4ax.com: >> > >>> >>> 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. > > strange, that! > I think I will prefer not to believe it. Your faith is strong. ..... >>It says they are expected to move consistent with Maxwell's theory for >>stationary bodies. > > OK, we measure Maxwell's two constants and calculate c wrt us. > > How do you know that a differently moving observer at the same point > gets the same values for those constants? > How do you know if the 'c' we calculated applies to light other than > that which is emitted by sources in our frame? > > You don't. We change our framework by accelerating it. We measure again. 'c' again. We look at various things in the universe. We use our reasoning. We watch the moons of Jupiter. We calculate. We get 'c' again. We accelerate particles to high velocities. We measure their properies. We look at photons emitted, we measure THEIR properties. We get 'c' again. >>>>>>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? > > They are spontaneous changes but need not be rapid ones. They can be > small and take place over hundreds of LYs. Magic? >>> 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. > > Speed must be specified as relative. > Einstein's statement is meaningless. Relative does not say OW or TW. ..... >>> 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. > > They can be found in remote space, quite easily. Not so easy to get to remote space, but no need. We have no evidence that the properties of remote space are any different from the properties of near space. > Nobody has looked for > them. Many people look for sub/superluminal photons. You just claimed that nobody has looked for them yet you have been told about numerous experiments that have been performed looking for such photons. >>> 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. > > You don't understand the difference. You don't understand that it makes no difference. > > There is no proof that light will take the same time to go from A to B > as from B to A. Let us assume for a moment that it doesn't. Imagine it takes twice as long to go from A to B as from B to A. What difference does it make? It still makes no difference in the measurement of relative speeds of photons. > Einstein postulated that it does...then he concocted a method of > synching clocks so that the two times MUST be the same, by definition. > He used circular logic to try to prove his own postulate. No. He started with data that showed they were the same. He said 'let us postulate that light moves at c wrt all observers', what would the implications be. He worked out the math and found set out ways to sync clocks. He isn't using circular logic to PROVE his postulates. He is using the results of his postulates to predict things. Scientist set out to check his predictions. So far none have failed. > In actual fact, OWLS and TWLS ARE the same when all components are at > mutually rest. That is what the BaT says. If you agree with this then > you are supporting the BaT because SR claims the opposite. You don't understand SR. > It says you > cannot absolutely synch two separated clocks in order to perform a OW > light speed experiment because that requires sending a light signal back > the other way......but if you use E-synching, you always end up with > tAB=tBA. MMX and every other experment, so far, are consistent with SR/GR. > I feel a great sense of satisfaction in having straightened out > Einstein's misconception. Your faith is strong. You labor under a misconception and you don't see it. -- 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: russell on 13 Jun 2005 11:22 russell(a)mdli.com wrote: [snip] > But it's not quite that simple. As I mentioned in my > other reply just a minute ago, GGT is proposed as "what > happens physically" (i.e. to be tested by the experiment) > but the authors do point out that it is compatible with > the Lorentz transformations if we use conventional > synchronization. Essentially, this would mean that > the lab-frame x is the x given by GGT, but the lab-frame > time is t_wrong, not t, although so far we don't know > we're making this mistake. I should clarify what I said above. AIUI, in Gagnon et al.'s conception of GGT, there is a real time "t" in the lab-frame, but this is not what the reading on a clock will be when that clock is Einstein-synched with a different clock at the origin. Rather, our lab clocks (even though they tick at the correct rate) will have a position-dependent offset that is an artifact of our synchronization convention. The clock reading (with this offset) is what I am calling t_wrong. Thus, I should have called it a "clock reading", not a "time". In SR of course, we are unused to making such distinctions.
From: russell on 13 Jun 2005 21:09 russell(a)mdli.com wrote: > Jerry wrote: > > 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. Sorry, I was wrong here. The two aethers are in fact the same in all physical respects. A lab-frame meter stick that is moving relative to the GGT aether frame is *contracted* in the aether frame. GGT is simply LET with a different (i.e. nonstandard) synchronization convention. Big deal. So the two aethers are not compatible; > > > GGT and LET are not the same theory. And so, my conclusion was wrong. > > > > GGT is supposed to respresent a semiclassical aether > > theory that resembles LET except that it "allows for > > the possibility of absolute simultaneity." If they mean this to be a physical difference (which maybe they don't) then I think they are confused. Simultaneity at a distance is *always* a matter of convention. One of Einstein's great insights! You can't define what time *means* globally unless you define how clocks are to be synchronized. > > > > 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 Oh, it makes sense, as I should have said in my earlier response, but now I see it doesn't amount to anything more than a mathematical shell-game. There *is* a way of synchronizing clocks that gives this equation: you Einstein-synch them with the clock at the origin, and then you reset them forward by the amount vx/c^2 where v is the speed of the aether wind, assuming you know what that is. (And if you don't, it doesn't matter! Because choosing any 0 <= v < c gives you self-consistent results.) > > > > 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. > > No, that wasn't my point. My point was that the GGT aether > is just as good as the LET aether at explaining the observed > results, because it *does* yield the Lorentz transformation > if you impose Einstein synch on it, as the authors say. Try > it out with their equations and see. The notation can get > confusing because your clocks will *not* read t (except at > the origin). Einstein synch sets them "wrong" according to > this physical interpretation; you just can tell that they > are wrong. Typo -- I meant that you *cannot* tell. But one has to ask, after reading the above paragraph, why go to all that trouble. Why not just redefine "time" (or "measured time", if you prefer that locution) to be "what clocks show when they are synchronized by the Einstein method". Voila, this is LET, and the GGT transforms are out the window. Yet it's a mere change of convention. > It turns out that t_wrong = t - vx/c^2. And also > t_wrong is what you get when you slow-transport your clocks; > i.e. everything conspires against your knowing. > > So, this *is* one of the theories that Roberts says is > indistinguishable from LET. My point was that the physical > interpretation is not the same as LET, But as I've said, that was an error. and that may be > important if you are going to use physical arguments (such > as how aether interacts with matter) to explain signal vs. > phase velocity differences in a waveguide.
From: Henri Wilson on 14 Jun 2005 00:54
On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 13:13:22 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"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. It isn't too important at the >moment but it will give you a small error when >you calculate the path length and speed. > >> I say the two beams move sideways by a different amount when the apparatus >> rotates and therefore the angle between them changes > >We have addressed that several times: > >1) both rays shift the same way so the angle > between them doesn't change > >I've extended the range and squared up the screen >so the applet makes this clearer: > >http://www.briar.demon.co.uk/Henri/SagnacAngles.html > >Note the two rays arriving at the magenta dot are >always at 90 degrees in this four-leg example. > >2) the angle between the beams plays no part > in determining at a point, only the phase > difference and magnitude matters. > >Look up superposition if you don't believe me. > >...and so does the path >> length. I say that interference fringes also move sideways because of this >> movement. > >Again we have already dealt with that. First a >movement perpendicular to the ray is parallel to >the wavefront so doesn't change the phase. Also, >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. > >http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/mcintyre/applets/optics/michelsc.html > >Regardless of all the above, you still haven't >shown that your assumptions would produce a shift >that numerically matches the experiment, nor has >anyone else been able to in the 92 years since >the experiment was performed. That is why BaT is >currently falsified by Sagnac. Any theory must be >able to produce accurate predictions for >experiments and the onus is on the proponent to >demonstrate that, not on others to refute your >assertions. > >George > Well George, thanks to Paul Andersen, I now have conclusive proof that the BaT is very much alive and well. If you care to run my variable star program at the default settings, you will find that it exactly predicts both the light curve and the radial velocity relationship of the 'cepheid' RT Aurigae. It matches the observed curve in every detail. When you have seen it and agreed that it cannot be just coincidence, I will argue with you further. The observed curve is at: http://mb-soft.com/public2/cepheid.html 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. |