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 19 Jun 2005 19:19 On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 09:55:57 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"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 > If cepheids are not orbiting, why do they exhibit precise radial velocity curves of an elliptical orbit, e=~0.25? 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 19 Jun 2005 19:38 On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 09:50:25 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"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. > I didn't mean that I wasn't interested. I really DON'T have enough time right now.. >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. George, the BaT doesn't rule out local aether-like EM frames of reference. If your theory about sagnac is correct then it provides pretty conclusin\ve evidence that an absolute frame DOES exist around Earth. In that frame, rotation and rotation rate might be absolute. >> 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. So does LET. SR has no physical meaning. It is disguised aether theory. > >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 don't agree. > >>>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 ;-) My program produces radial velocity curves for elliptical orbits. Cepheids have an unmistakable curve of a body in elliptical orbit. The program is presently undergoing improvements so if it produces strange results don't be surprised. > >>>> 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. Extinction George, extinction. > >> 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. We will see. > >> 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. We will see. > >> 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. LET gives dt=4Aw/c^2 At this stage, Ritz doesn't want to comment. Ritz is only interested in the way light travels through deep space. >>> >>>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. Here we go! YOU DON"T UNDERSTAND. Of course I understand SR. That's why I know it is just disguised aether theory. > >>>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. SR give the LET explanation. > >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 19 Jun 2005 19:41 On 18 Jun 2005 20:07:25 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >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." Don't believe everything you read. That kind of experiment doesn't have anything like the sensitivity required. It usually amount to a TWLS experimient anyway. > >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.
From: Henri Wilson on 19 Jun 2005 20:19 On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 20:57:55 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:opj9b1lolpte4v6koigi64rrps10par0vh(a)4ax.com: > >>>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. HHMMMM! > >> Doesn't the air make it speed up? > >No. > >> Hey, maybe we have just discoverd a new type of refrigerator. > >No. OK. >>> >>>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.. That is how light behaves according to the BaT. A ball traveling at v wrt the ground and approaching a wall moving at -u, also wrt the ground, strikes the wall at v+u wrt the wall. It rebounds at -(v+u) wrt the wall...which is -(v+2u) wrt the ground. >>>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. OK in theory. You do it. >> It wont work. Not sensitive enough. > >Are you sure? Not entirely. But it would have to be done on the moon....or large asteroid. >> >> 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. using classical wave theory? > >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. I say that because I don't believe the experiment is capable of measuirng SLPs even if it DID produce any. > >[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. I've had plenty that failed. I realised why later. The MMX failed because light speed is souce dependent. >>> >>>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. relative to what? >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. speed must be specified relative to something. >> Earth didn't even exist when much of it was emitted. >> >> Please answer. No answer? Cannot answer? >>> >>>Mutually at rest clocks are easy to sync. >> >> Not according to SRians. >> Clocks can be E-synched but not 'absolutely synched'. > >I didn't say absolutely synchd. SR says separated clocks cannot be synched except with the E-synch method. However, there is a simple way to absolutely synch clocks. Cm->v _______C1____C2____C3____C4____C5 Move clocks Cm at constant speed along a line of equally separated clocks. As it passes each one, adjust its time to that of the moving clock. >> 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. A rod cannot physically shrink and lengthen simultaneously. I take that as an absoute truism. >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. Can a rod physically lengthen and shrink simultaneously, as SR claims? One would certainly need a lot of faith to maintain such a belief. >>> >>>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] See. You cannot answer. > >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]. Atomic clocks speed up when in free fall because they are manmade and not perfect. Do you ever see figures for clocks in other orbits? No of course you don't!.... Why??? Because they don't suport GR of course. The establishment doesn't want to know about that. >> >> 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. No it doesn't. It merely says both light rays travel at the one speed wrt the absolute aether frame and the measuring rods and clocks of the moving observers change so that the speed of the light is always measured as being c. >>>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. As far as I can see, all so-called 'evidence' for SR seems to support the 'local aether' principle. 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: bz on 19 Jun 2005 21:14
H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:sgvbb1dlu1g4nm33denb7j7vtgqee2ebti(a)4ax.com: > My program produces radial velocity curves for elliptical orbits. > Cepheids have an unmistakable curve of a body in elliptical orbit. > It just so happens that the same unmistakeable curve is produced by a common relaxation oscillator circuit. It just so happens that the same unmistakeable curve is produced by the acoustic waves / He+ <--> He+2 model. It just so happens that the same radial velocity curves can be produced by many other equations fitted to the same sets of data points. For example, y=(a+cx+ex^2+gx^3+ix^4)/(1+bx+dx^2+fx^3+hx^4) a=4.161978, b=-0.73966632, c=7.6566209, d=4.5406785, e=255.64869, f=- 12.857883, g=-560.22997, h=8.5526683, i=295.0672 is a very good fit for RT Aurigae velocity vs phase. -- 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 |