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: bz on 16 Jun 2005 07:27 "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote in news:1118917589.067262.269950(a)o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com: > bz wrote: >> H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >> news:0552b19m9kdh6u22bp0j9isvgf89va14gt(a)4ax.com: >> >> > (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) >> > >> >> hit your print screen button >> this puts a copy of the screen onto the clipboard >> it can then be pasted into a graphics program and trimmed, etc and >> saved as a file. > > Focus on a pane, press down Alt-Print Screen to get a copy of the > specific pane in the clipboard. Thanks! That is one I didn't know. -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+nanae(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu
From: bz on 16 Jun 2005 09:57 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:vi72b1t8hpjrkok7qfjbrvq7db6vedmg00(a)4ax.com: > On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 13:10:05 +0000 (UTC), bz > <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>news:202va1lrs7ndollrk8u7lrpdmuue4okd63(a)4ax.com: >>> No, quite logical really. >>> I certainly wouldn't expect anything to traverse 1 billion LYs without >>> something happening to its speed. >> >>You would expect subluminal BaT particles to GAIN speed????? > > It IS possible. It would depend on what they came in contact with I > suppose. It light ws moving at c wrt its source and it came to a gas > cloud that was moving away from the source at v, I would expect its > speed to increase wrt the source, as it passed through. I wouldn't bet > my house on it though.. I suspect that it would present some problems with the laws of thermodynamics. It would require the slow light to cool the gas it was passing through as it gained energy from the light. >>>>Relative does not say OW or TW. >>> >>> OW is implied. >>> Let's try a TW experiment. >>> >>> Consider a mirror approaching me at 0.5c. >> >>149,000 km/s >> >>> >>> 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. >> >>I disagree on the 2c! >> >>Even if BaT were true it could only return at 1.5c, where do you get 2c? > > The light reflects from the mirror at the incident speed ...which is 1.5 > c wrt the mirror. So the return speed is 1.5 + the mirror speed, or 2c. > > Get it? Light has been observed from moving mirrors. There is no indication that the light ever travels at any speed different than c. http://www.stats.uwaterloo.ca/~rwoldfor/papers/sci- method/paperrev/node10.html >>> 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. >> >>200 micro seconds for the two way trip at c both ways. >> >>> >>> For the second the pulse takes time 0.00001 + 0.000005 secs >>> The TW speed is again 2E8 m/s. >> >>20 micro seconds for the two way trip at c both ways. >> >>> 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.. >> >>You can know its speed very precisely. > > DHR's can accept a postulated value. That has nada to do with anything. Here is a very simple experiment that even you can perform to measure the speed of light. After you finish the experiment, as written, then we can add a couple of item to the set up and measure the speed of light when reflected from a moving mirror. The pieces of apparatus to add? A loudspeaker and an audio generator. Glue a small, lightweight mirror to the loudspeaker cone. You can determine the exact speed of the mirror by measuring the distance it is moving and the frequency used to move the speaker cone. >>We can't move a mirror at .5 c, but a bunch of atoms could move that >>fast and we can bounce a laser beam off of it and measure the time it >>takes for the photons to get back to us. > > Too many other factors are involved. Translation: it sounds like it might invalidate BaT, so it is rejected. >>> True. A TW experiment involving relatively moving sources is perfectly >>> valid. >> >>Finally! > > I still reckon it would be a waste of time. Especially if you would reject the results unless they supported BaT [in which case there would be nothing at all wrong with the experiment]. >>>>> 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 had MMX's results. > > the general feeling is that Einstein was not aware of the MMX > result... Which General are you quoting? > or at least he was not particularly interested in the null > result. That isn't surprising. Null resuilts usually mean the experiment > or the theory behind it was flawed.. He formulated his theory in order to explain MMX and other experiments that had failed to find any sign of an aether. >>>>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. >> >>Right. >> >>> 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. >> >>Wrong. > > S1->v____________________O > v<-S2 > > Only a property of space could cause light pulses from differently > moving sources to travel together towards observer O. A property of space or a property of light. I vote for a property of light. >>>>Scientist set out to check his predictions. So far none have failed. >>.... >>> >>> 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. >> >>TWLS experiments are valid for comparison of speeds. >> >>> SR postulates that OWLS and TWLS are always the same. >> >>That is SR per Henri. SR says nothing about OWLS vs TWLS. >> >>> ..but just to make >>> sure, Einstein decided to synch his clocks so that tAB=tBA by >>> definition. >> >>Einstein said 'clocks moving in different directions will not stay in >>sync.' > > the clocks defining E-synch were mutually at rest. Mutually at rest clocks are easy to sync. Things only get interesting when the clocks are in FoRs that are in motion wrt each other. >>> 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 >> >>Within any single frame, all clocks run at the same speed. Once sync'd, >>they stay in sync. InterFrame time keeping is where things start to get >>interesting. > > I'll let you into a secret. They stay in synch even if you move them. According to HW theory. But AE theory says that observers moving with either clock will see the OTHER clock moving slower. >>>>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. >> >>There is no fringe shift. The aether crutch can be thrown away. It does >>us no good because it is not testable. SR opened up many fields of >>research, allowing scientists to look for experiments to test its >>conclusions. > > SR completely derailed physics. Not at all. SR opened up many fields of research. LET is untestable so IT closes doors and prevents further research. >>LET was and is a dead end. > > Probably...although many still don't think so. Many still think the earth is flat, too. >>>>> 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. >> >>Your faith is strong. You labor under a misconception and you do not see >>it. > > Apparently Ritz and Einstein were in close contact. I don't know. I don't care, it has nothing to do with physics today. -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+nanae(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu -- 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: Craig Markwardt on 16 Jun 2005 10:18 H@..(Henri Wilson) writes: .... snip ... > Emitted starlight does NOT travel at c wrt little planet Earth. How could it? It could if relativity were correct. In fact, it is well know that the light from stars travels at the speed c with respect to the earth, to within very narrow uncertainties. Earthbound interferometers such as the VLT Interferometer would not work properly if this were not true (and they do work properly). Radio VLBI observations of planets, spacecraft, stars and distant galaxies would not work properly if the speed of light were not c (and they do work properly). Thus the proper statement is, emitted starlight *does* appear to travel at c w.r.t. Earth. Your statement belies an obvious misunderstanding of Relativity. In it, light *must* travel at the same speed with respect to all frames. > 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. That is one (refuted) possibility. Another possibility is that light travels at the same speed with respect to all measurers. By your logic, it would be ludicrous for binary pulsars to emit radiation at the same speed w.r.t. earth at the different positions in its orbit, and yet... it does! To very high precision. Nature does not exist to satisfy your intuition or sense of ludocrity. CM
From: George Dishman on 17 Jun 2005 13:18 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:0552b19m9kdh6u22bp0j9isvgf89va14gt(a)4ax.com... > 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. No, you have shown that you don't realise your software greatly exaggerates the displacement and that it is much less than the beam wdith in any practical experiment. > The actaul light speed > makes negligible difference. You haven't tried varying it. The time taken for each beam must be proportional to the path length and inversely proportional to the speed so it is bound to have an effect. > I am satisfied that this is the reason for any fringe shifts. From memory, I thought you said you had used an interferometer. If so, cast your mind back. When you align the mirrors, if you have both beams present, it is like shining a searchlight on a railing. You can move the brightest part of the beam around but the shadows of the railings don't move. If you have used an interferometer you must have seen that. Lateral motion of the beam has no effect. > 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. Or in other words, you are admitting you don't have a ballistic theory because you cannot apply what you have and get a quantitative result. If you apply the Ritian version, it predicts a null result but the observation is first order so the standard ballistic theory is falsified. >>>>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. I have no idea what you mean by that. Primarily I believe the information would be spectrocopic, a high ecentricity would produce a non-sinusoidal velocity curve. The site above gives references, in particular Tomkin J. & Lambert D. L. 1978, AJ, 222, L119. <snip> >> 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) Alt - print screen (as has been said by others) then paste into Windows Paint then save as png. BTW, it's a good way to illustrate user manuals. >>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. If you change the velocity, the peak-to-peak amplitude of the velocity curve would change so changing it is out unless you make some other compensating alterations. Since you claim to have got a match, I am assuming you have not only the shape but the correct amplitude though I note you don't have scales on either of the curves. >>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. Light is light whereever it is, though I agree we know far more about conditions in the lab. > 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 ... Displaying your inability to comprehend SR isn't a convincing argument. The null result predicted by Ritzian theory for the Sagnac experiment is a quite different matter. If you want to convince anyone BaT is even credible, show how you can derive the Sagnac equation from it. Best regards George
From: Henri Wilson on 18 Jun 2005 21:30
On 16 Jun 2005 09:18:27 -0500, Craig Markwardt <craigmnet(a)REMOVEcow.physics.wisc.edu> wrote: > >H@..(Henri Wilson) writes: >... snip ... >> Emitted starlight does NOT travel at c wrt little planet Earth. How could it? > >It could if relativity were correct. In fact, it is well know that >the light from stars travels at the speed c with respect to the earth, >to within very narrow uncertainties. Earthbound interferometers such >as the VLT Interferometer would not work properly if this were not >true (and they do work properly). Radio VLBI observations of planets, >spacecraft, stars and distant galaxies would not work properly if the >speed of light were not c (and they do work properly). You are forgetting that light speed is unified by the Earth's atmosphere. >Thus the >proper statement is, emitted starlight *does* appear to travel at c >w.r.t. Earth. Your statement belies an obvious misunderstanding of >Relativity. In it, light *must* travel at the same speed with respect >to all frames. That is an unproven postulate, nothing more. > >> 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. > >That is one (refuted) possibility. Another possibility is that light >travels at the same speed with respect to all measurers. By your >logic, it would be ludicrous for binary pulsars to emit radiation at >the same speed w.r.t. earth at the different positions in its orbit, >and yet... it does! To very high precision. Nature does not exist to >satisfy your intuition or sense of ludocrity. Then why do most variable stars brightness curves exactly match The BaT predictions based on their light traveling at c+v, at least for a significant part of the way? > >CM 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. |