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 14 Jun 2005 21:43 On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 20:02:58 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >news:7dosa1pf8o9pb9vc57joart9v6g7sntnov(a)4ax.com... >> >> 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. The sagnac efect is not well understood. It cannot be taken as evidence against the BaT. > >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. I just have. It matches the observed curves perfectly. > >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: there are many simple reasons for that. Firstly, they will not appear to vary if well away from the critical distance. Secondly, two similar sized stars in approximately circular orbit will each exhibit a brightnes curve that is similar and 180 out of phase. The combined effect is a pretty flat line. You can see that with my program. Thirdly, their orbit planes may be nearly perpendicular to our LOS. > > http://ad.usno.navy.mil/wds/dsl/SB8/sb8.html Good... but I don't know the terminology. > >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. Yes. My program produces the same curves. The BaT predicts single star curves that are indistinguishable from those of eclipsing binaries. The shape is produced, assuming c+v, for stars in highly eccentric orbit (0.4-0.7) Genuine eclipsing binaries should have a fairly constant brightness when not eclipsing except that if mutual eclipsing occurs, there should be a dip in the flat section. Many binaries show a rounded top on their brightness curves. That could be explained by the 'day/night' factor if they are in near tidal lock. The BaT predictions show a small dip in the flat section that could easily be mistaken for mutual eclipsing. > >> 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 Yes, you ran a long way beyond the critical distance. If that is passed, multiple imagery ocurs and all kinds of strange things happen. The number of orbits scanned has to be increased and the program takes more time to run. Stop the 'light fronts' at about 120 LYs. > >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. Try again. > > http://mb-soft.com/public2/cepheid.html > >Have I missed something in the instructions? The program is pretty complicated. Just stop the fronts at various point and see how far they have travelled (small red figures appear when paused) > >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 14 Jun 2005 22:21 On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 23:50:50 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >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. Roemer didn't get anything like c. No other OW experiment has been attempted...so your claims mean nothing. > >We accelerate particles to high velocities. We measure their properies. We >look at photons emitted, we measure THEIR properties. We get 'c' again. Too many other factors involved here. Let's stick to light from 'neutral particles'. >>>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? No, quite logical really. I certainly wouldn't expect anything to traverse 1 billion LYs without something happening to its 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. >> >> Speed must be specified as relative. >> Einstein's statement is meaningless. > >Relative does not say OW or TW. OW is implied. Let's try a TW experiment. Consider a mirror approaching me at 0.5c. The experiment involves sending a light pulse towards it so that the pulse will strike it when it is a) 30000 m away, and b) when it is 3000 m away. In both cases, the pulse returns to me at 2c. In the first instance, the pulse takes time = 0.0001 secs + 0.00005 secs to return to me. The TW speed is 30000/0.00015 = 2E8 m/sec. For the second the pulse takes time 0.00001 + 0.000005 secs The TW speed is again 2E8 m/s. So one can perform a TWLS experiment using a moving reflector....but it doesn't tell you much unless you know the speed very precisely.. > >.... >>>> 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. 'Remote space' has <critical matter density and field strengths. > >> 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. They only look for them in experiments that are doomed to fail. > >>>> 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. Good. That's what the BaT says. You are now supporting the BaT. OWLS = TWLS in single frame experiments. >> 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 makes LET look pretty good. > >It still makes no difference in the measurement of relative speeds of >photons. True. A TW experiment involving relatively moving sources is perfectly valid. > >> 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. Einstein had NO DATA. >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. He used the clock synch definition to make the aether an unnecessary complication. He thought he succeeded. But SR breaks down completely when it tries to explain how and why light from differently moving source SHOULD end up traveling across space at the same rate. > >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. Well. OK, I should have said SR claims that no experiment can measure OWLS because such would involve two separated clocks, the synching of which can only be carried out using light traveling the opposite way to that being measured. That constitutes a TWLS experiment. SR postulates that OWLS and TWLS are always the same...but just to make sure, Einstein decided to synch his clocks so that tAB=tBA by definition. If you can't se the funny side to that then YOU don't understand SR. In actual fact, Einstein did the right thing. According to the BaT, E-synching IS absolute synching...adn OWLS does =TWLS in any single frame experiment > >> 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. SR's explanation amount to saying "there is no fringe shift becasue there is no fringe shift". At least LET has a case. > >> 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. Einsein was probably on the verge of getting it right before Walter Ritz died suddenly. After that, the momentum of his bandwagon swept him off his feet. 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: David Evens on 15 Jun 2005 01:06 On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 11:17:48 GMT, H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote: >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. seo you claim that your previous claims that Cepheids are multi-stellar objects, which contain elements that are never observered to occur in isolation, were never made. >>(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: David Evens on 15 Jun 2005 01:06 On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 11:19:42 GMT, H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote: >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. You would make that mistake, having defined 'believable' as something very close to "is not understood by me to demonstrate my religion to be mule muffins". >HW. >www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > >Sometimes I recognize that I am a complete failure. >The most useful thing I have never done is prove Einstein wrong.
From: Jerry on 15 Jun 2005 06:43
russell(a)mdli.com wrote: > 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. The reference waveguide receiver does -not- have the same reading as a clock synchronized with the source by slow transport. That would only be if phase velocity in the reference waveguide were infinite. It is not infinite, since the reference waveguide is only run -near- cutoff, not -at- cutoff. The precise multiple of speed of light is not important in the reference waveguide, only that it be relatively large. The exact phase relationship between the reference receiver and the source oscillator is unknown and irrelevant. What they confirmed, was that two receivers connected by transmission lines of differing characteristics to a common source oscillator show no variation in relative phase as the experimental apparatus rotates in the supposed aether wind. A pre-Michelson aether wind would have been detectable; a Generalized Galilean aether wind would have been detectable; a Lorentz aether wind would not. The ability of their setup to detect an aether wind has nothing to do with whether or not the reference receiver is a "stand-in" for a synchronized clock, which it isn't. If the reference waveguide were run with a phase velocity of, say, approximately 10x the speed of light versus, say, 1.3x the speed of light in the test waveguide, the apparatus should still have been able to detect various forms of aether drift. You would agree that in such a case the reference receiver could not possibly be mistaken for a clock which has been synchronized with the source oscillator and slow-transported? Synchronized clocks were not necessary for the experiment to have worked; only an aether with cooperative characteristics. Jerry |