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 18 Jun 2005 21:46 On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 18:18:53 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"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. Of course it is less. So what? > >> 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. Light speed causes only second order differences then. > >> 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. That does occur if I remember rightly.. but that angular deflection applies to both beams...so you are just moving the whole pattern sideways. > >> 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. George, I don't have time to discuss the Sagnac effect any more. If what you claim is correct then you should be looking for a 'local aether', not continuing to worship Einstein. >>>>>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. If one accepts that Light travels at c wrt its source then a totally different picture emerges. > ><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. Thanks. I didn't know that one. > >>>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. The curve shapes are all I am primarily interested in. The program produces only curves based on light leaving a star at c wrt the star and c+v wrt Earth. The fact that this approach can produce most observed brightness curves is pretty good evidence that it is correct...particularly when other factors are considered. > >>>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. and a lab could constitute a 'locally absolute frame'. > >> 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. George, anyone can understand an unproven postulate. >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. Look for an aether George. Sagnac supports the idea. > >Best regards >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 18 Jun 2005 21:48 On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 05:36:58 -0400, David Evens <devens(a)technologist.com> wrote: >On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 06:33:11 GMT, H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote: >>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. > >Of course such a simple sentence is beyond your understanding. It >demonstrates you to be stupidly wrong. > That fellow Aristotle wants to go for a holiday with you, David. 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 18 Jun 2005 22:13 On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 13:57:00 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >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. Does light cool air when it emerges from a glass plate? Doesn't the air make it speed up? Hey, maybe we have just discoverd a new type of refrigerator. >>>> 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. There is no evidence that it always travels at c, either. Besides we are discussing the ballistics of an elastic ball bouncing from a moving wall. > >http://www.stats.uwaterloo.ca/~rwoldfor/papers/sci- >method/paperrev/node10.html > Nobody has ever measureed OWLS from a moving mirror. > >>>> 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. It wont work. Not sensitive enough. > >>>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. Well you do it and I will consider my answer. I think We already discussd this. > >>>> 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]. If you knoew what actually PHYSICALLY happens when a laser beam bounces of a moving atom, then your experiment might mean something. >>> >>>He had MMX's results. >> >> the general feeling is that Einstein was not aware of the MMX >> result... > >Which General are you quoting? That subject has been discussed here many times. There is nothing in Einstein's papers that leads one to believe that he took much notice of the MMX. Maybe he agrees with me,... that null results show only that the experiment was flawed. > >> 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. I would not disagee.. but that is apparently not the general view. >>>> 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. Light, when emitted, doesn't know its ultimate target. So how could it adjust its speed to c wrt little planet Earth. Earth didn't even exist when much of it was emitted. Please answer. >>>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. Not according to SRians. Clocks can be E-synched but no 'absolutely synched'. >Things only get interesting when >the clocks are in FoRs that are in motion wrt each other. very. They have to be presynched, then set in motion. We know that giving a clock a bit of a push doesn't change its 'absolute' rate, don't we? I have proved that many times. >>>> 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. Just ask yourself the question again. If a clock is given a push, does it physically speed up or slow down. >>>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 equations are identical to those of SR. If anything supports SR it also support LET. > >>>LET was and is a dead end. >> >> Probably...although many still don't think so. > >Many still think the earth is flat, too. At least aether theory has a physical basis. >>> >>>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. It will have a lot to do with physics tomorrow. 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: Jerry on 18 Jun 2005 23:07 Henri Wilson wrote: > Nobody has ever measureed OWLS from a moving mirror. False statement, Henri. As is practically everything else you write. Your complete ignorance of the extant literature disproving BaT is pathetic. Beckmann, P. and Mandics, P. Test of the Constancy of the Velocity of Electromagnetic Radiation in High Vacuum. Radio Science Journal of Research 69D, 623-628 (1965). "It is pointed out that Einstein's postulate of the constant velocity of light is verified only indirectly by elementary particle experiments leaning more or less heavily on present electromagentic theory, the latter being verified only for low velocities. Direct experiments can be explained by the ballistic theory of light if transparent media, such as gases, reradiate as a secondary source. A direct experiment with coherent light reflected from a moving mirror was performed in vacuum better than 10^-6 torr. Its result is consistent with the constant velocity of light." Jerry
From: Henri Wilson on 18 Jun 2005 23:23
On 16 Jun 2005 03:26:29 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >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. It doesn't seem to work on mine. I'm using winXP. I cannot find the clipboard anyway, presumeably because there is nothing on it.. > >Jerry 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. |