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: russell on 14 Jun 2005 07:08 russell(a)mdli.com wrote: [snip] To sum up my involvement in this thread, I see now that I agree completely with Tom Roberts's postings of last April, which I missed at the time but have now read. For me, it's interesting to look back and see the gyrations I went through, to come finally full circle and demonstrate for myself what I could have easily read in the Roberts postings. As did Roberts (who did this immediately, I more slowly) I concluded that the waveguide at cutoff was a stand-in for a slowly-transported clock, although I did not say so in such economical terms. His gedankenexperiment proving this is classic. I had a picture of this that was similar, but I botched it by focusing on the irrelevant group velocity. Jerry was right to call me on this mistake the first time I made it; I recanted but then reversed my recantation, and now I have to re-recant it. :-( However, I was right on the money when I insisted that the possibility of phase shift in the cutoff waveguide is crucial to the analysis -- though of course phase depends on phase velocity (duh) not group velocity. As measured in the aether frame, the driven oscillator at the far end of the waveguide lags or leads the reference oscillator depending on whether it is upstream or downstream in the aether wind. Exactly as a slowly transported clock does. My slight reworking of Jerry's algebra was OK as far as that went, and I think I said nothing objectionable in that part of my post. Apparently Gagnon et al. made the mistake, as I said in one post, of thinking they could build a single clock that is extended in space. This is clearly not possible -- indeed it's meaningless -- unless you have built your synch convention into the clock itself. And a convention isn't anything physical.
From: Jerry on 14 Jun 2005 09:21 russell(a)mdli.com wrote: > russell(a)mdli.com wrote: > > [snip] > > To sum up my involvement in this thread, I see now > that I agree completely with Tom Roberts's postings > of last April, which I missed at the time but have > now read. For me, it's interesting to look back and > see the gyrations I went through, to come finally > full circle and demonstrate for myself what I could > have easily read in the Roberts postings. > > As did Roberts (who did this immediately, I more > slowly) I concluded that the waveguide at cutoff was > a stand-in for a slowly-transported clock, although > I did not say so in such economical terms. His > gedankenexperiment proving this is classic. I had > a picture of this that was similar, but I botched > it by focusing on the irrelevant group velocity. > Jerry was right to call me on this mistake the > first time I made it; I recanted but then reversed > my recantation, and now I have to re-recant it. :-( We both learned a lot in this thread. :-) > However, I was right on the money when I insisted > that the possibility of phase shift in the cutoff > waveguide is crucial to the analysis -- though of > course phase depends on phase velocity (duh) not > group velocity. The phase shift in the cutoff waveguide is supposed to be minimal. > As measured in the aether frame, > the driven oscillator at the far end of the > waveguide lags or leads the reference oscillator > depending on whether it is upstream or downstream > in the aether wind. Exactly as a slowly transported > clock does. The driven oscillators lead or lag in phase by an amount dependent on the phase velocity of light in the transmission line connecting them to the source oscillator, the speed and direction of the hypothetical aether wind, and the characteristics of the hypothetical aether wind. Given a LET aether, a clock synchronized with the source oscillator and slowly transported to the other end of the waveguide has no reason to be varying in phase with the source oscillator just because the apparatus is turned in the aether wind. Other types of aether -do- have problems with slow transport, at least according to my reading of Edwards. Give me a few days before I can scan and post my copy of Edwards. The cat liked perching on the scanner, but then my dog freaked Shadow out, Shadow jumped off the scanner, the scanner fell, and so I currently don't have one that works. > My slight reworking of Jerry's algebra was OK as far > as that went, and I think I said nothing objectionable > in that part of my post. > > Apparently Gagnon et al. made the mistake, as I said > in one post, of thinking they could build a single > clock that is extended in space. I'll have to read through your previous posts in detail, which I haven't had time to do lately. > This is clearly not > possible -- indeed it's meaningless -- unless you have > built your synch convention into the clock itself. > And a convention isn't anything physical. Jerry
From: George Dishman on 14 Jun 2005 15:02 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:7dosa1pf8o9pb9vc57joart9v6g7sntnov(a)4ax.com... > 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. I suggest you reconsider the points above. > 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. Ritzian theory is also a perfect match for the MMX but, like your variable stars, that is irrelevant when the Sagnac experiment falsifies it. Any particular theory may match many observations which is why science is based on falsification. However, you are still not grasping the concept. If you want to promote your theory, you have to look at tests which should be able to falsify the theory and show that they can be explained. BaT requires that the light from any star which is a component of a binary be modulated by the motion as you understand. The test therefore is to look at stars which _are_ binaries but are _not_ variable. This list might be a useful starting point: http://ad.usno.navy.mil/wds/dsl/SB8/sb8.html Choose a sample which has magnitude for both components, where neither stellar type is variable and (I'm guessing this one) where the orbital acceleration times the distance from Earth is of the order of c^2. Androcles already suggested Algol which is an eclipsing binary of course, the interesting part is the flat sections between the dips. > When you have seen it and agreed that it cannot be just coincidence, I > will > argue with you further. Either there is a problem with your program or just clicking the buttons and using the defaults isn't enough. This was the result I got: http://www.briar.demon.co.uk/Henri/Henris_binary.png The light curve should at least be repetitive at the same frequency as the velocity curve. I was expecting the green line on your program to be comparable to the lower curve on the web page giving the observed data. http://mb-soft.com/public2/cepheid.html Have I missed something in the instructions? George
From: russell on 14 Jun 2005 17:13 Me again, to correct a misreading I made of your post. russell(a)mdli.com wrote: > Jerry wrote: [snip] Given a LET aether, > > a clock synchronized with the source oscillator and > > slowly transported to the other end of the waveguide > > has no reason to be varying in phase with the source > > oscillator just because the apparatus is turned in > > the aether wind. I misread the above, so I responded as if you had written something else. Namely, as if you had said there's no reason for the phase in the waveguide to affected by the aether wind. This is not quite the same thing as what you wrote, although it *is* equivalent if Roberts is right in his gedanken. (As indeed he is, but I don't expect you to agree without working it out.) > > Correct! But neither do clocks have any such > reason -- and yet they do vary, in this theory. I meant, LET has no explanation for why clocks are affected by the aether wind, either. It simply "happens". And not just their rates, but their *synchronization* (i.e. their phase wrt the clock at the origin) *also* is affected by the aether wind under most synch conventions; in particular, it is so affected under the convention of absolute time. As well as under the artificial convention of Gagnon et al. > They're trying to have it both ways. I meant they're assuming that the aether wind affects clocks without affecting the phase in a waveguide. The problem with that is, they don't need to make such an assumption at all -- they can simply measure whether in fact it is true, via the method Roberts described. They don't, because they know that that would amount to a synchronization of clocks, and they want their experiment to be novel. This is unfortunately bogus. They replaced a verifiable fact with an unjustified assumption implying the same thing, and surprise of surprises, the assumption was confirmed.
From: russell on 14 Jun 2005 17:27
russell(a)mdli.com wrote: [snip] > I meant they're assuming that the aether wind > affects clocks without affecting the phase in a > waveguide. The problem with that is, they don't > need to make such an assumption at all -- they > can simply measure whether in fact it is true, > via the method Roberts described. They don't, > because they know that that would amount to a > synchronization of clocks, and they want their > experiment to be novel. This is unfortunately > bogus. They replaced a verifiable fact with an > unjustified assumption implying the same thing, > and surprise of surprises, the assumption was > confirmed. Ick, somewhere between top and bottom of that paragraph the assumption I was talking about got turned into its own negation. What they confirmed, in fact, was that clocks synchronized by the phase in the waveguide have the same reading as clocks synchronized by slow transport. But they could have verified this directly. |