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 15 Jun 2005 12:31 russell(a)mdli.com wrote: > russell(a)mdli.com wrote: > > Jerry wrote: > > > russell(a)mdli.com wrote: > > > > > > > It remains the case, however, that one-way speed of > > > > anything is meaningless unless you specify how you > > > > are to synchronize your clocks. > > > > > > I have never disagreed with you on this. However, > > > Gagnon et al. have never claimed to be able to measure > > > one-way speed of light. They have only claimed to be > > > able to measure anisotropies in the one-way speed of > > > light. > > > > And I think it was an empty claim, or amounts to that, > > because they had to assume the possible truth of a theory > > that has been falsified in two-way experiments. But > > this whole area is subtle, I admit, and that's why Zhang > > could write a whole book about it. (And btw. Zhang was > > published after Gagnon...) > > Furthermore, my earlier point that OWLS-anisotropy > along with TWLS gives you OWLS, is not even subtle. > I think this is what lay behind my disbelief of Gagnon > from the start. Nice experiment, fishy analysis. We have a consensus here about the analysis. Ben Rudiak-Gould had this to say: "The theoretical part of this paper appears to be little short of nonsense. I can't believe it survived peer review in this form. [snip] The authors introduce a "generalized Galilean transformation" given by x' = gamma (x - v t) (gamma = (1-v^2/c^2)^(-1/2)) y' = y z' = z t' = gamma^-1 t This is not even a group." http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/7297ae72028aa9ca That t' = gamma^-1 t equation is just plain wierd. Jerry
From: George Dishman on 15 Jun 2005 15:13 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:6j0va1pg8o0jvah3aipnbv1jmgnvks70sc(a)4ax.com... > 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... <snip> >>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. The conditions in the experiment can be very well controlled in the lab. There is far more uncertainty about the orbits of binary stars and of course you even have to invent new stars to explain cepheids. > It cannot be taken as evidence against the BaT. When testing BaT, it is BaT that has to tell us why the Sagnac Effect occurs. Anyone with the necessary mathematical skills should be able to follow the recipe that BaT offers and get a specific prediction of the detector output. That is what defines a theory. The application as I understand Ritzian theory is simple, the speed of the light is the sum of the source motion and a vector of magnitude c in such a direction that the light hits the detector. That, and knowing that a ballistic theory requires simple reflection laws at the mirrors, is enough for me to calculate the result, and it is wrong. If you want to demonstrate how to calculate the output in a way that matches the known result, be my guest. There are only three possibilities that I can see: a) Applying the theory produces a prediction that matches the experimental result. If so, the method you used passes the test. b) Applying the theory produces a prediction that does not match the experimental result. If so, the method is not useable so we say the theory os falsified. c) What you call "BaT" is not capable of making a prediction. In that case, it isn't a theory just an idea. Basically, I am an engineer and if I have to design something, I need equations that work. If BaT cannot tell me _accurately_ what output to expect from a Sagnac-based instrument I design then it is of no use to me - the theory is false. >>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. Perhaps. I'll have to retry following your extra instructions. When you said to use the defaults, I had assumed it would have the distance built in and stop at the appropriate point. >>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. I suggested using spectroscopic binaries because it ensures the plane isn't perpendicular, and in fact the Doppler variation gives you the line-of- sight component of the speed directly. The other points were covered by the criteria I suggested below (I think you didn't read ahead before answering). >> http://ad.usno.navy.mil/wds/dsl/SB8/sb8.html > > Good... but I don't know the terminology. There are links to explanatory pages, or you could ask here, it is sci.astro after all ;-) >>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) The Algol inner pair has eccentricity of 0.00. http://www-astro.physics.uiowa.edu/~lam/research/algol/table.gif There's a lot more on that site: http://www-astro.physics.uiowa.edu/~lam/research/algol/ So does your program give the correct light curve using those numbers? > 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. Hipparcos gives the parallax as 2.09 mas which is around 200pc or over 600 light years so I tried it with that value: http://www.briar.demon.co.uk/Henri/Henris_binary.png That's more like what I was expecting, a repetetive curve of the same frequency. However, it's not a very good match, the peaks are rather extreme and your distance is well outside the Hipparcos error. http://www.rssd.esa.int/Hipparcos/HIPcatalogueSearch.html The "Hipparcos Identifier" is 30827. See fields H11 and H14. BTW, field 54 of the results provides a PDF of the light curve. Anyway, while this is useful revision on using the catalogue, it is academic as long as BaT is incompatible with Sagnac. I still await your demonstration of how to apply it in that case ;-) George
From: Henri Wilson on 16 Jun 2005 02:32 On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 20:13:56 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >news:6j0va1pg8o0jvah3aipnbv1jmgnvks70sc(a)4ax.com... >> On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 20:02:58 +0100, "George Dishman" > >> It cannot be taken as evidence against the BaT. > >When testing BaT, it is BaT that has to tell >us why the Sagnac Effect occurs. Anyone with >the necessary mathematical skills should be >able to follow the recipe that BaT offers and >get a specific prediction of the detector >output. That is what defines a theory. The >application as I understand Ritzian theory is >simple, the speed of the light is the sum of >the source motion and a vector of magnitude c >in such a direction that the light hits the >detector. That, and knowing that a ballistic >theory requires simple reflection laws at the >mirrors, is enough for me to calculate the >result, and it is wrong. > >If you want to demonstrate how to calculate the >output in a way that matches the known result, >be my guest. There are only three possibilities >that I can see: > >a) Applying the theory produces a prediction > that matches the experimental result. If so, > the method you used passes the test. > >b) Applying the theory produces a prediction > that does not match the experimental result. > If so, the method is not useable so we say > the theory os falsified. > >c) What you call "BaT" is not capable of making > a prediction. In that case, it isn't a theory > just an idea. > >Basically, I am an engineer and if I have to >design something, I need equations that work. >If BaT cannot tell me _accurately_ what output >to expect from a Sagnac-based instrument I >design then it is of no use to me - the theory >is false. George, I have shown that during rotation, both beams of the sagnac move sideways IN THE SAME DIRECTION by different amounts. The actaul light speed makes negligible difference. I am satisfied that this is the reason for any fringe shifts. I don't know why but since we have no idea what the intrinsic properties of a photon might be, I am not going to try to speculate any further. Maybe we acan actually learn something about photon fields because of this. > >>>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. > >Perhaps. I'll have to retry following your >extra instructions. When you said to use the >defaults, I had assumed it would have the >distance built in and stop at the appropriate >point. No, you clik the green button first. This sets the 'lightfronts' in motion. Use pause and restart to set the distance. I don't have a reverse key on this so if you go too far you have to start again by clicking the green button. > >>>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. > >I suggested using spectroscopic binaries because >it ensures the plane isn't perpendicular, and in >fact the Doppler variation gives you the line-of- >sight component of the speed directly. The other >points were covered by the criteria I suggested >below (I think you didn't read ahead before >answering). > >>> http://ad.usno.navy.mil/wds/dsl/SB8/sb8.html >> >> Good... but I don't know the terminology. > >There are links to explanatory pages, or you >could ask here, it is sci.astro after all ;-) > >>>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) > >The Algol inner pair has eccentricity of 0.00. Who said? > > http://www-astro.physics.uiowa.edu/~lam/research/algol/table.gif I can't read that. > >There's a lot more on that site: > > http://www-astro.physics.uiowa.edu/~lam/research/algol/ yes, very detailed. but frankly George, I am not really interested in explanations that use Einsteiniana. Emitted starlight does NOT travel at c wrt little planet Earth. How could it? I now have clear evidence that I am right about this....not that I had any doubts.. What happens to GPS clocks, sagnac or particles in accelerators is not my concern at the moment. If any claims about these are in line with 'relativistic predictions' then we should be looking for a 'local aether' around the Earth, not following Einstein's mislaid footprints.. > >So does your program give the correct light >curve using those numbers? Androcles claimed that the right parameters produced te exact curve. I am more interested in curve shapes at this stage. George, eclipsing binaries obviously exist and produce the same curve as a singly orbiting star with eccentricity 0.4-0.7. ('singly' means orbiting a dark companion) It might be difficult to tell the difference. > >> 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. > >Hipparcos gives the parallax as 2.09 mas which >is around 200pc or over 600 light years so I >tried it with that value: > > http://www.briar.demon.co.uk/Henri/Henris_binary.png (incidentally, do you have a program that saves any screen? I don't seem to be able to find a way to do it using winf\dows) > >That's more like what I was expecting, a >repetetive curve of the same frequency. >However, it's not a very good match, the >peaks are rather extreme and your distance >is well outside the Hipparcos error. Reduce the maximum velocity, using the combo box below the green button. > > http://www.rssd.esa.int/Hipparcos/HIPcatalogueSearch.html > >The "Hipparcos Identifier" is 30827. > >See fields H11 and H14. > >BTW, field 54 of the results provides a >PDF of the light curve. > >Anyway, while this is useful revision on >using the catalogue, it is academic as >long as BaT is incompatible with Sagnac. >I still await your demonstration of how >to apply it in that case ;-) What goes on in remote space is one thing, in the lab another. It is quite ludicrous to think that light from a star emitted at one point in its orbit should travel at the same speed towards little planet Earth as light emitted half an orbit later. Emitted light has only one speed reference AND IT CERTAINLY ISN'T LITTLE PLANET EARTH. > >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 16 Jun 2005 02:33 On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 01:06:29 -0400, David Evens <devens(a)technologist.com> wrote: >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 >> >>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. that sentence contains too many negatives for me to understand. > >>>(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. 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 16 Jun 2005 02:34
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 01:06:31 -0400, David Evens <devens(a)technologist.com> wrote: >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: >>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". Evens, my time is valuable. I am not going to waste any more trying to implant facts into your thick skull. 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. |