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 20 Jun 2005 06:48 On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 01:14:39 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >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. HoHohahhahah! Wherever did you read that? > >It just so happens that the same unmistakeable curve is produced by the >acoustic waves / He+ <--> He+2 model. HoHohahhahah! Wherever did you read that? > >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. HoHohahhahah! Wherever did you read that? > >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. Very funny, Bob. RT Aur has the exact radial velocity curve of a star in elliptical orbit, e=~ 0.25. So do all other 'Cepheids'. 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 20 Jun 2005 06:59 Henri Wilson wrote: > 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. In other words, you aren't familiar with the paper and DON'T WANT to be familiar with the paper. Running away from unpleasant truth, as always. Jerry
From: bz on 20 Jun 2005 07:56 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:ik7db15njgl25s6vm68v23i9cvoot328tn(a)4ax.com: > On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 01:14:39 +0000 (UTC), bz > <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > >>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. > > HoHohahhahah! Wherever did you read that? I have built such circuits and observed the curves myself. I think the first time I saw such curves was on an Oscilliscope [heathkit] that I build when I was 16. >>It just so happens that the same unmistakeable curve is produced by the >>acoustic waves / He+ <--> He+2 model. > > HoHohahhahah! Wherever did you read that? You have been given several references for that 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. > > HoHohahhahah! Wherever did you read that? I didn't need to read it, I demonstrated it in the next paragraph. That was the best fit in the set of equations I had on hand, r better than 0.9999 I could have given any one of several hundred other equations that were almost as good. >>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. > > Very funny, Bob. My point is that it is easy to fit a curve. It is easy to assign meanings to parameters. It is much harder to establish that those assignments are correct. > RT Aur has the exact radial velocity curve of a star in elliptical > orbit, e=~ 0.25. > So do all other 'Cepheids'. No, Henri. Only two BaT stars of the proper masses, one of which is a peculiar black hole that doesn't seem to be capturing mass from the other star [if it were, there would be massive radiation of x and gamma rays]. In short, your model depends on several things that have never been observed. Several of those things have been looked for for over 100 years and are still not observed. Your curves look nice, Henri, but [not to throw you a curve] I suggest you not place your FAITH in them unless you want to form your own religion. -- 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: bz on 20 Jun 2005 10:21 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:6n0cb1loqahm4seaqa173k39vt7l1s9hqr(a)4ax.com: > 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: ..... >>>>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. As I understand it, photons don't really 'bounce' from a surface. They are absorbed and re-emitted. That would result in the emitted photons losing velocity (but perhaps gaining energy) when they 'bounce' from a moving surface. >>>>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 sub/super luminal photons can be created in the atmosphere of a star and travel through the vacuum of space, they can be created in a particle accelerator and travel through the vacuum of the lab or by bouncing light off of a moving front surface mirror and travel through the air in the lab. If the air in the lab is too dense to allow the photons to move at super/sub luminal velocity, the atmosphere of the star must be much more likely to kill such photons. Any Henri Cepheid stars are going to leave behind them a dense ring of stellar gasses and THOSE gasses are going to cause a rapid extinction of any photons that pass through them. Those gasses are NOT going to be moving at the radial velocity of the visible star. Like our solar wind, they are going to be going all directions from the visible star at speeds exceeding the stellar escape velocity. Photons going through the stellar winds are going to be speeded up and slowed down. This would produce both faster and slower than BaT predicted photons. >>> 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? What does THAT question have to do with anything? >>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. It should produce some if they can be produced anywhere in our universe. >>[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. If you learned from them, they did not fail. > The MMX failed because light speed is souce dependent. Try rowing up river and back to starting point Row down river and back to starting point. do this with a stationary starting point. do this with a moving starting point. MMX falsified the theory that there is an absolute aether. MMX did NOT fail. It failed to show what they thought it would show, but it did not fail. >>>>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? everything it interacts with. >>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. >>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 is c relative to the emitter. Speed is c relative to the absorber. >>> Earth didn't even exist when much of it was emitted. >>> >>> Please answer. > > No answer? > Cannot answer? I answered. >>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. The absorber does not need to exists when the emission takes place. >>>>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. There is a reason for that. > 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. And how does that contradicts Einstein? There is a minor problem. It is that the moving clock is RUNNING at a different rate than the set of fixed clocks. >>> 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. Depends on your favorite theory. Yours is BaT which is a subset of LET. LET believers think the rod physically shrinks. >>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. SR doesn't claim it shrinks, LET makes that claim. You like LET. SR says it appears to shrink. >>>>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. I answered several times. >>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. Not sufficent explanation. The change in speed is not due to an imperfection. Imperfections can be compensated for. How do you compensate for the fact that atomic clocks based on different oscillator frequencies show the SAME shift in speed? > 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. Absolute aether has been invalidated by MMX and hundreds of other experiments. You can have an LET [if you can explane how it can span discontinuous FoRs], but not an absolute aether. >>>>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. SR does away with the need for a local aether. It doesn't make it impossible for one to exist. Why carry a crutch you don't need? -- 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: George Dishman on 20 Jun 2005 14:24
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:davbb15hl2v4b0rnm7884ecp7tt11su6uv(a)4ax.com... > 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? You haven't shown that they do yet, put the scale on your velocity curve. However, let me return your question: If cepheids are not variable, why do they exhibit the curves of a typical relaxation oscillator? http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/astronomy/CepheidVariable.html http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~soper/MilkyWay/cepheid.html If cepheids are orbiting components of binaries, why is the eccentricity the same for them all? Why is the individual star's luminosity related to the period of the orbit? Why do we never see the other star? You can ask rhetorical questions 'til the cows come home but you are going to have two possible solutions until you rule one out. Theories cannot be proven true, we accept theories based on falsification of the alternatives. That's why what you are doing is pointless if you are trying to test theories. If you are just playing with a hypothetical theory for fun, then that's another matter of course, it's your time to spend. George |