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: George Dishman on 20 Jun 2005 16:05 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:sgvbb1dlu1g4nm33denb7j7vtgqee2ebti(a)4ax.com... > 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.. Me too, but I would have felt guilty if I hadn't brought Sagnac to your attention. I know we discussed it some time ago but I am sure you just dismissed it as something that could be easily answered. The fact is that it rules out BaT and I would feel bad if you eventually realised that and asked why nobody brought it to your attention. If you want to spend your time on cepheids just for exercise knowing that the Ritzian model is invalid, that's your choice and my conscience is clear :-) >>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. No, what I have shown you is that Sagnac rules out BaT. > 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. I'm not speculating on alternatives. To rule out an aether theory, you need to know the details and then pick an appropriate experiment to test it. >>> 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. Correct. > SR has no physical meaning. It is disguised aether theory. You are just demonstrating you have no concept of the alternative to the aether model that SR provides.. >>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'll wait for you to show the maths that gives your alternative result but so far you haven't found any flaw in my analysis. > The program is presently undergoing improvements so if it produces strange > results don't be surprised. Understood, it really doesn't mean much until you match the velocity curve amplitude. Could you add a box where you enter the distance and have it stop instead of having to guess when? >>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. Doesn't affect spectral lines Henri. >>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. Ritz has no choice, it is in the nature of a theory that it must be available to anyone to apply and the theory must supply the rules of applicability. SR is not applicable in the presence of significant gravitational tidal forces for example, which rule of Ritz do you think prevents its application to Sagnac? >>>>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. Shout all you want, I'll base my view on the content of your posts such as: > That's why I know it is just disguised aether > theory. and: > SR give the LET explanation. LET says that clocks tick more slowly when moving due to an interaction with the aether, SR says there is no aether and clocks must therefore be unaffected by inertial motion. LET says material objects (including rulers) grow shorter in the direction of their motion through the aether, SR says there is no aether and the length of objects therefore cannot be affected by something that doesn't exist. In other words, SR says the proper length of an object is unchanged by speed. LET says the mass of an object moving through the aether increases due to some interaction with it, and the resulting mass has different values in different directions (which I personally find quite bizarre). SR says mass is a simple scalar which is invariant. Now look at what you said in another post "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:6n0cb1loqahm4seaqa173k39vt7l1s9hqr(a)4ax.com... > Can a rod physically lengthen and shrink simultaneously, as SR claims? Obviously your "lengthen and shrink simultaneously" is just a joke but SR says the proper length is unchanged and what you say suggests you think it really changes. While you may claim to understand SR, your posts tell another story. George
From: Henri Wilson on 20 Jun 2005 20:02 On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 19:24:29 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"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: >>>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? they don't. The middle section is just about dead straight in the cepheids and ellipses. The curve of a RO has sharper 'corners'. > >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? Through circular logic. Cepheids are categorized as a group BECAUSE their ecentricities are roughy the same and they exhibit the same type of brightness varaibility. >Why is the individual star's luminosity related >to the period of the orbit? Bigger means slower. Bigger means brighter. >Why do we never see the other star? The two are very close to each other but all cepheids are much too far away to be resolved optically. >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, the BaT is no hypothetical. There is no reason to believe that all starlight is specifically designed to leave its source at exactly c relative to little planet Earth. Only a person who still clings to the religious notion that the Earth is the centre of the universe would want to believe that. The same applies to the BB. It is purely a creationist theory. > >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 20 Jun 2005 20:22 On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 11:56:34 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:ik7db15njgl25s6vm68v23i9cvoot328tn(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. The RO curves are not the same as these. > >>>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 isn't hard to concoct a theory when you know the answer you want. What about the HE and H "ionisation delays" they talk about? >>>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. My program doesn't just find an equation that fits a curve. It produces a curve that fits an intricately constructed equation. >> 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]. Speculation.. > >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. What? > >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. SR is the religion. It is based solely on the notion that the Earth is the centre of the universe. There is absolutely no justification for its existence. 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 20 Jun 2005 20:40 On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 21:05:36 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >news:sgvbb1dlu1g4nm33denb7j7vtgqee2ebti(a)4ax.com... >> On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 09:50:25 +0100, "George Dishman" >> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >> wrote: >> >>>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.. > >Me too, but I would have felt guilty if I hadn't >brought Sagnac to your attention. I know we >discussed it some time ago but I am sure you >just dismissed it as something that could be >easily answered. The fact is that it rules out >BaT and I would feel bad if you eventually >realised that and asked why nobody brought it >to your attention. If you want to spend your >time on cepheids just for exercise knowing that >the Ritzian model is invalid, that's your choice >and my conscience is clear :-) > >>>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. > >No, what I have shown you is that Sagnac rules >out BaT. I don't accept that. As far as I can see the effect is caused by something unrelated to light speed. Rotation has some kind of absolute reference in the Earth's vicinity.. > >> 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. > >I'm not speculating on alternatives. To rule out >an aether theory, you need to know the details >and then pick an appropriate experiment to test >it. SR is a maths model. You have to also consider the physics. Aether theory is the physics behind SR. > >>>> 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. > >Correct. > >> SR has no physical meaning. It is disguised aether theory. > >You are just demonstrating you have no concept >of the alternative to the aether model that SR >provides.. mathematically, it does. Physically, it does not. > >>>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'll wait for you to show the maths that gives >your alternative result but so far you haven't >found any flaw in my analysis. It is not a top priority of mine at present.. >> The program is presently undergoing improvements so if it produces strange >> results don't be surprised. > >Understood, it really doesn't mean much until >you match the velocity curve amplitude. Could >you add a box where you enter the distance and >have it stop instead of having to guess when? Yes I will do that. > >>>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. > >Doesn't affect spectral lines Henri. That's the intresing point. If it should and it doesn't, that tells us something about the intrinsic properties of a photon. They don't vary with speed change. >> >> 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. > >Ritz has no choice, it is in the nature of a theory >that it must be available to anyone to apply and the >theory must supply the rules of applicability. SR is >not applicable in the presence of significant >gravitational tidal forces for example, which rule of >Ritz do you think prevents its application to Sagnac? Ritz says the fringe shift is pretty independent of light speed. > >>>>>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. > >Shout all you want, I'll base my view on the >content of your posts such as: > >> That's why I know it is just disguised aether >> theory. > >and: > >> SR give the LET explanation. <-S1______p->_______________O S2-> How else would two light pulses emitted by two differently moving sources end up moving together through space? That is pure LET. > >LET says that clocks tick more slowly when moving >due to an interaction with the aether, SR says >there is no aether and clocks must therefore be >unaffected by inertial motion. LET says material >objects (including rulers) grow shorter in the >direction of their motion through the aether, SR >says there is no aether and the length of objects >therefore cannot be affected by something that >doesn't exist. In other words, SR says the proper >length of an object is unchanged by speed. LET >says the mass of an object moving through the >aether increases due to some interaction with it, >and the resulting mass has different values in >different directions (which I personally find >quite bizarre). SR says mass is a simple scalar >which is invariant. SR uses the term 'proper' to get itself out of trouble. SR works reasonably well if all observers are considered to be moving wrt an absolute frame and their rods and clocks are all contracted accordingly. Trouble ids, IT BREAKS DOWN. ....because v appears as quadratic instead of linear. > >Now look at what you said in another post > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >news:6n0cb1loqahm4seaqa173k39vt7l1s9hqr(a)4ax.com... > >> Can a rod physically lengthen and shrink simultaneously, as SR claims? > >Obviously your "lengthen and shrink simultaneously" >is just a joke but SR says the proper length is >unchanged and what you say suggests you think it >really changes. While you may claim to understand >SR, your posts tell another story. George, SR dosn't know what is wants. If the 'proper rate' of a GPS clock remains unchanged, why does it REALLY change when measured by the original observer in the original frame with the original time reference? > >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 20 Jun 2005 20:42
On 20 Jun 2005 03:59:30 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >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. Experiments like that are open to almost any intrerpretation. > >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. |