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 19 Jun 2005 01:13 Henri Wilson wrote: > On 16 Jun 2005 03:26:29 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > >bz wrote: > >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.. When you Ctrl-C (copy), Ctrl-V (paste), you are using the clipboard. The clipboard is invisible. You copy (or cut) to the clipboard, and you paste from the clipboard. PrintScreen copies the entire screen to the clipboard. Alt-PrintScreen copies a specific pane to the clipboard. You can thrn Ctrl-V to paste the contents of the clipboard onto Windows Paint or other graphics program. Jerry
From: George Dishman on 19 Jun 2005 04:50 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:dni9b1t4os5lrsbivas0ft17jvlvtfa0aa(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 18:18:53 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: > <snip to reduce size> >>> 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? Think of representing the whole beam by a family of rays each almost parallel to its neighbours. Only one reaches the detector (or a few for a finite width detector). If you assume it is the centre ray that hits when stationary, it will be a ray nearer the side of the beam when the table is rotating. At any speed, it is only the rays that reach the detector that determine the output. You need to compensate the launch angle slightly. As I said before, it won't materially affect the outcome but it would make your animation look sensible. >>> 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. No, proportional to means it is first order unless the two effects (speed and length) exactly cancel. They do in Ritz because the speed is v +/- c which matches the path length change while they don't in SR since the speed is independent of the table motion. Both models include a small second order increase of the paths (think of the curved paths in the rotating frame) but again that applies equally to both paths so cancels. >>> 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.. Thanks Henri. I try to base my arguments on evidence you can corroborate and if you have first-hand experience, that is the best. > but that angular deflection applies to > both beams...so you are just moving the whole pattern sideways. No, since moving either beam produces no shift, even moving both doesn't produce a shift. Two nulls add up to null ;-) >>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 Ritzian 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. As you wish, but you should realise that it means that your efforts on variable stars are pointless, it doesn't matter even if you manage to get a match to some (or all) of them, Ritzian theory is still unquestionably falsified by Sagnac. > If what you claim is correct then you should be looking for a 'local > aether', > not continuing to worship Einstein. SR gives the formula dt = 4Aw/c^2 for any equipment using the Sagnac effect. That works so there is no need to look any further. If you think some new variant of ballistic theory can come up with a better equation, in the way that quantum theory gave Planck's Law as an improvement on Wien's Law, then by all means present it and suggest a way it could be tested. At the moment, Ritz says dt=0 which is definitely wrong. >>I have no idea what you mean by that. Primarily I >>believe the information would be spectroscopic, a >>high eccentricity 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. Have you looked at their paper to see if their method depends on the speed of light? Have you recalculated the eccentricity based on BaT? That was quick work if you have ;-) >>> 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. That proves nothing. It is only when you match both the shape and amplitude to the velocity curve that you force the speed of the light leaving the system. Given the speed and the distance known from parallax, you then get the light curve so until you get the amplitude right you have nothing. > The program produces only curves based on light leaving a star at c wrt > the > star and c+v wrt Earth. Yes but the speed of the star relative to the Earth (v) is defined by the observed Doppler shift. Unless you also match the amplitude, you are using c+kv where k is an arbitrary scaling factor with no justification in your theory. > The fact that this approach can produce most observed brightness curves is Until you get the velocity curve amplitude right, you don't know whether it will produce a good match or not. I put in the correct distance and the match is dreadful, but unless you correct the velocity curve, even that bad result is meaningless. > pretty good evidence that it is correct...particularly when other factors > are > considered. No, even if every match is perfect, it isn't evidence that the theory is correct, theories can never be proven correct by any means, they can at best be "not falsified", which is why the Sagnac evidence rules the decision. >>>>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 wherever it is, though I agree >>we know far more about conditions in the lab. > > and a lab could constitute a 'locally absolute frame'. You can analyse in any frame you like, if the theory is self-consistent, the result must be the same. Either the detector gives an output or it doesn't. SR says dt=4Aw/c^2, Ritz says dt=0. >>> 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. I can only go on what I see. What you wrote displays a complete lack of understanding of basic SR. >>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. No need to look, I am quite familiar with LET. However, the aether is superfluous and SR gives an equation that matches reality so I'll use that any time I need to. Ballistic light gives a null prediction which I know is wrong. best regards George
From: George Dishman on 19 Jun 2005 04:55 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:bei9b19g6oa7theagqk616v8qoevq0ifjd(a)4ax.com... .... > 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? You don't know whether they do or not because as you said in your reply to me, you have not yet matched your assumed value of v to the measured spectroscopic Doppler shift. Pick a number, any number .... George
From: bz on 19 Jun 2005 16:57 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:opj9b1lolpte4v6koigi64rrps10par0vh(a)4ax.com: > 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? No. It moves at c in the glass, in between being absorbed and re-emitted. > Doesn't the air make it speed up? No. > Hey, maybe we have just discoverd a new type of refrigerator. No. >>>>> 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. Just that it has traveled at c every time it has been measured. > Besides we are discussing the ballistics of an elastic ball bouncing > from a moving wall. We are? I dont see any elastic ball bouncing from a moving wall above.. >>http://www.stats.uwaterloo.ca/~rwoldfor/papers/sci- >>method/paperrev/node10.html >> > Nobody has ever measureed OWLS from a moving mirror. We don't NEED OWLS. We are not testing for a universal Aether. We can work with ANY light speed determination method we like since all we are interested in knowing is if c'=c+v. If we see a change in c' as we vary v, then we invaliditate SR and BaT has some support. If we see no change in c' as we vary v then, once again, BaT is invalidated, this time with a moving mirror. ..... >> >>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. Are you sure? >>>>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. Yep. >>>>> 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 know what actually PHYSICALLY happens when a laser beam bounces > off a moving atom, then your experiment might mean something. Scattering from particles is pretty well documented and understood. You would say it meant something if it produced results indicating sub/super luminal photons. The only reason you imply it has no meaning is because you know it would invalidate BaT. >>>>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. [quote ALBERT EINSTEIN Unmaking the Myth By Christopher Jon Bjerknes] The historic record is readily available. Joseph Larmor, Hendrik Antoon Lorentz, Jules Henri Poincarý, and many others slowly developed the theory, step by step, and based it on thousands of years of recorded thought and research. [unquote] > Maybe he agrees with me,... that null results show only that the > experiment was flawed. Experiments that 'fail' are often the most valuable. >>> 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. Introduce me to the General. ..... >>> 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. Light doesn't NEED adjust its speed, it obeys the speed limit. Its speed is a property of the photon- It is also a property of the interaction- between the emitter and the photon- between the photon and the absorber. > 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'. I didn't say absolutely synchd. > >>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. Henri, you can't PROVE anything in science. You can predict, you can collect data that supports, you can invalidate. You can't prove. You keep thinking you have proven things. That shows you have faith in your religion. It shows you are NOT practicing science. >>>>> 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. Henri, if you are honest with yourself you will say that you have absolutely no idea what will happen because you have not personally performed the experiment. [since you don't like the data that others have gathered] All you can say is what various theories predict. You also know that there IS data that indicates that clocks run faster under lower G and that clocks run slower under higher v and under acceleration [which slows the clocks just as higher G does and is predicted to do under GR]. >>>>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 is untestable and has a major problem. How 'local' is the 'local' in an LET? How do you explain the 'local aether' moving along with one set of moving objects [an observer, a light source, test equipment] that passes very close to another inertial set moving in a different direction? Imagine 4 sets of train tracks 1 [observer a & test equipment a] ===> 2 [observer b & test equipment b] <=== 3 [source a] ===> 4 [source b] <=== 1 & 3 move at same velocity 2 & 4 move at same velocity How can the aeither from track 1 carry over to track 3 and the aether from track 2 carry to track 4 without mixing aethers? It is easy for Einsteinians to consider 1&3 part of the same inertial frame and to consider 2&4 part of another inertial frame. But LET kind of falls into pieces in such a case. >>>>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. So does the flat earth theory. Neither is right. >>>>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. Einstein/Ritz = it? Indefinite pronouns are troublesome. -- 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: Henri Wilson on 19 Jun 2005 19:17
On 18 Jun 2005 22:13:08 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On 16 Jun 2005 03:26:29 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> >> >bz wrote: > >> >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.. > >When you Ctrl-C (copy), Ctrl-V (paste), you are using the clipboard. >The clipboard is invisible. You copy (or cut) to the clipboard, >and you paste from the clipboard. > >PrintScreen copies the entire screen to the clipboard. >Alt-PrintScreen copies a specific pane to the clipboard. > >You can thrn Ctrl-V to paste the contents of the clipboard onto >Windows Paint or other graphics program. Well I'll be damned. I knew that worked with most screens but until now I had not been able to capture a VBasic output window. Thanks for that. > >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. |