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 21:12 On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 14:21:23 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:6n0cb1loqahm4seaqa173k39vt7l1s9hqr(a)4ax.com: > >>>> 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. Strange how they are re-emitted at exactly the incident angle, don't you think.... >>> >>>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. But the star atmosphere itself is moving at v wrt Earth. > >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. Yes they are...most of it anyway. >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. This is unknown territory. We can only speculate about the way photons change speed in turbulent gases like these. It is an important topic..but first things first... > >>>> 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? I think all interference, scattering, refraction etc effects are still explained only by classssical wave theory. >>>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. The usual question is what happens when you row ACROSS the river and back again. >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. No. It failed, and it FAILED. >>>>>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. That's an SR postulate, not a fact. >> 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. That's an SR postulate, not a fact. > >>>> 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. How can it be moving at c wrt an absorber that doesn't even exist? That's plain stupid. >>>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. It isn't. It's rate doesn't change with movement. > >>>> 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. Come on Bob, don't be ridiculous. >>>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. I don't like aether theories at all....but they might work locally. For instance, does a large lump of glass constitute a 'local reference frame' for all light inside it? Probably yes. > >SR says it appears to shrink. .....but SR also says it appears to lengthen in the frames of all observers who were initially moving in the direction of the push. ....so it doesn't really do either, does it.. >>>> 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. You gave the wrong answer. >>> >>>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? That is a logical consequence of release from internal gravitational stresses. How do YOU account for the fact that similar clocks in any free fall show the same degree of rate change? > >> 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. I don't want one. I don't believe in an absolute aether. I don't accept LET although I believe its principles MIGHT apply to local situations. >> >> 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? SR DOES need the aether. 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 21:56 Henri Wilson wrote: > On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 14:21:23 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> > wrote: > >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. > > Strange how they are re-emitted at exactly the incident angle, don't you > think.... Natural consequence of constructive interference at reflected angle equal to incident angle, as the waves are coherently re-radiated. Basic physics 101. > >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. > > But the star atmosphere itself is moving at v wrt Earth. NO. Don't you know anything about the solar wind? > >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. > > Yes they are...most of it anyway. Wrong. > >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. > > This is unknown territory. > We can only speculate about the way photons change speed in turbulent gases > like these. It is an important topic..but first things first... Every time you are confronted with data that BaT can't explain, you claim that physics doesn't have the answer. In reality, it is only YOU that haven't the foggiest notion. > I think all interference, scattering, refraction etc effects are still > explained only by classssical wave theory. Then you should know why reflected angle equals incident angle. > >MMX did NOT fail. It failed to show what they thought it would show, but it > >did not fail. > > No. It failed, and it FAILED. No. It showed that classical notions of the aether were false. That is not failure. > That's an SR postulate, not a fact. Constancy of c is an experimental observation, not an arbitrary postulate. > >How do you compensate for the fact that atomic clocks based on different > >oscillator frequencies show the SAME shift in speed? > > That is a logical consequence of release from internal gravitational stresses. Why to atomic clocks in different orbits require different corrections for GR effects? Free fall is free fall. The cesium atoms in a cesium beam clock on the earth are in free fall. They are free of gravitational stress. The cesium atoms in a fountain clock are in free fall. The rubidium atoms in a rubidium glass cell are NOT in free fall. Yet they behave require exactly the same corrections as a cesium beam clock when liften into orbit. Your "logical consequence" is totally illogical. > How do YOU account for the fact that similar clocks in any free fall show the > same degree of rate change? They do not. Compare GPS with GLONASS. Compare with cesium atoms in free fall in a fountain clock. Jerry
From: bz on 20 Jun 2005 22:59 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:7bmeb1ds7uae0d8fcn62fu4gr54fqqvq5f(a)4ax.com: > 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. Henri, there are different kinds of relaxation oscillators with different looking waveforms. I assure you that it is quite possible to produce any of the cepheid wavforms with a relaxation oscillator using the proper circuit elements. >>>>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. All theories start out trying to explain observed phenomia (the answer you want to get). Your BaT as well as any others. Shapely in his 1914 paper "On the nature and cause of Cepheid variation." explores various double star hypotheses available at the time and explains why they must be rejected. One important point is that "various lines [in the spectrum] show large irregular shifts, which are not progressive with the phase of the star in its light-period." In other words, we are NOT seeing a doppler shift due to the motion of the whole star, something is happening to the physical body of the star causing different spectral lines (different elements) to show different shifts. Different elements are moving inward and outward from the radiating surface at different times during the cycle. Of course, nothing was known or understood about how stars work at that time, but some kind of pulsation of the star itself was found to be the most likely cause of cepheid variation. Later, as fusion was understood and as the characteristics of He+, He+2, and H+ absorbtion/radiation characteristics became better known, the pulsation theory made even more sense. > What about the HE and H "ionisation delays" they talk about? I have no idea what you are talking about at this moment. >>>>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. No. Your program show the curve produced by an equation when the parameters are adjusted manually until the curve 'looks right'. It is not like you fet in the parameters and got the right curve on the first try. >>> 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.. Phenomina observed around neutron stars and black holes. Not 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? Subluminal photons, superluminal photons, evidence of BaT; an explanation of cepheid varaiton based upon double stars. The data just doesn't support an orbit of any kind causing cepheid variation. Read Shapley's paper. >>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. There may be some SR priests on usenet. You certainly act like a BaT priest. I have no faith in either theory. > It is based solely on the notion that the Earth is the centre of the > universe. There is absolutely no justification for its existence. That is not a scientific statement. It is exaggeration. Once again, you show your faith is strong. -- 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: Jerry on 20 Jun 2005 23:28 bz wrote: > H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in > news:7bmeb1ds7uae0d8fcn62fu4gr54fqqvq5f(a)4ax.com: > > It isn't hard to concoct a theory when you know the answer you want. > > All theories start out trying to explain observed phenomia (the answer you > want to get). Your BaT as well as any others. > > Shapely in his 1914 paper "On the nature and cause of Cepheid variation." > explores various double star hypotheses available at the time and explains > why they must be rejected. One important point is that "various lines [in the > spectrum] show large irregular shifts, which are not progressive with the > phase of the star in its light-period." Full article available here: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1914CMWCI..92....1S&db_key=AST Henri, there is no excuse for you not to read this one! Jerry
From: Jerry on 21 Jun 2005 00:28
Jerry wrote: > bz wrote: > > Shapely in his 1914 paper "On the nature and cause of Cepheid > > variation." explores various double star hypotheses available > > at the time and explains why they must be rejected. One > > important point is that "various lines [in the spectrum] show > > large irregular shifts, which are not progressive with the > > phase of the star in its light-period." > > Full article available here: > http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1914CMWCI..92....1S&db_key=AST > > Henri, there is no excuse for you not to read this one! Henri, you keep claiming that the period of Cepheid variables is absolutely consistent. But even in 1914, anomalous timing variations were observed in Cepheid behavior that were inconsistent with the hypothesis that they are double stars. To quote Shapely: "Further observations of SW Andromadae, made since the last report, have confirmed the previous results, showing that the time of the rise to maximum light varies from the mean predicted time by ten or fifteen minutes within the short interval of two or three days, but evidently without exhibiting regular periodicity....If the observed oscillations were definitely periodic, it would perhaps be possible to attribute them in some kind of a binary system to orbital changes, such as the rotation of the line of apsides. But the sudden and unpredictable changes in the light-variation, very likely accompanied by analogous oscillations in the velocity- curve, introduce another difficulty into the binary system theory." Jerry |