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 23 Jun 2005 19:56 On 23 Jun 2005 05:59:14 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On 20 Jun 2005 18:56:36 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >> >> 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. >> >> They may be in the same free fall ..but are they cutting the >> Earth's fields at the same speed? > >Bogus argument. >GPS satellites orbit in six orbital planes, and cross Earth's >magnetic fields at different angles. YET ALL ARE CONSISTENT >WITH EACH OTHER. Hence, cesium beam clocks and rubidium glass >cell oscillators are insensitive to variations in the rate >at which they are "cutting the Earth's fields." You are very confused. the 'GR correction' only applies once. When the clocks are in steady orbit, GR plays no further part. > >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 23 Jun 2005 20:04 On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 19:51:30 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:9hblb1p8suciajqp125svl6h5i0j436439(a)4ax.com: > >> On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 14:37:29 +0000 (UTC), bz >> <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >> >>>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>>news:1moeb1ds0oodcit7ijs0tbe4me4rhq8m4t(a)4ax.com: >>> >> >>>>>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.... >>> >>>It would be much stranger if they weren't. >> >> It would be very strange, just like pefectly elastic balls bouncing off >> walls. > >or any of a number of wave phenomina. Not much surprise as photons appear >to have wave and particle properties. they have 'wave and particle' properties because nobody has a real clue as to what they are. > >Reflection from non metallic surfaces are more interesting. Most metallic >reflectors reflect all photons within certain wavelength limits. > >Non metalics discriminate, at some angles, against some polarizations. Yes it is all very interesting. >>>>>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. >> >> Your colleague Craig Markwardt recently informed me that there is >> nothing in the Earth's atmosphere that could or would unify the speed of >> light. > >I don't know Craig Markwardt. He is on one of these threads. > >>>> >>>> Yes they are...most of it anyway. >>> >>>"Most of it" is going to average to 'zero velocity' wrt the barycenter >>>involved because the stellar winds are going in all directions and will >>>average out to zero. >> >> all speculation > >Point out flaws in my reasoning. The above was OK but the whole businessof stellar winds is speculative. > >> ...but anyway, the overall effect will be to increase the >> critical distance, just as thermal velocity of sources does. > >Wouldn't that be 'to decrease the extinction distance'. > >And doesn't decreasing the extinction distance also decrease the critical >distance? no. Any modification of c+v towards c will increase the critical distance. >If they do in the lab, they should in the star. > >> There will always be a kind of average speed of all the light leaving a >> star in the observer's direction. > >On the contrary, rapidly rotating stars show broaden doubled lines due to >doppler shift of light leaving from one side vs light leaving from the >other side of the star. One side is red shifted and the other is blue >shifted. They even use these doppler shifts to help detect starspots. > >http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~acc4/coolpages/imaging.html Very dicey. >>>> The usual question is what happens when you row ACROSS the river and >>>> back again. >>> >>>MMX has one beam going up-river/down-river and the other beam going >>>across the river. >> >> that's right. ..and the time taken to go across and back is independent >> of the river speed IF THE BOAT IS ALWAYS ALIGNED PERPENDICULAR TO THE >> SHORE.. > >Your assertion is noted. > >> M M and Einstein argued wrongly by assuming that light consists of >> 'little spheres'. It doesn't. Photons have a 'long axis' and its >> direction doesn't change when an observer moves past. > >Your assertion is noted. > >> >> the time taken to go up and down the river varuies with river flow by >> the linear doppler expression. >> In other words the factor 'gamma' should have 'v', not v^2. . > > >but light isn't water. The doppler expression for light has two terms, one >with v and one with v^2 > >nu = nu_0 sqrt(1-v_s^2/c^2)/(1-v_s/c) >nu = frequency observed >nu_0 = source frequency >v_s=source velocity >c=velocity of light. > >http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/reldop3.html > >Read this all but transverse doppler shift answers your boat problems. > >http://www.du.edu/~jcalvert/phys/doppler.htm > >.... The BaT doppler equation is much simpler and all I need to know. 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: kenseto on 23 Jun 2005 20:27 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:o1jmb190jlpghliqd1gb0tjjg08cjbnj13(a)4ax.com... > On 23 Jun 2005 05:59:14 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > >Henri Wilson wrote: > >> On 20 Jun 2005 18:56:36 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > >> >> 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. > >> > >> They may be in the same free fall ..but are they cutting the > >> Earth's fields at the same speed? > > > >Bogus argument. > >GPS satellites orbit in six orbital planes, and cross Earth's > >magnetic fields at different angles. YET ALL ARE CONSISTENT > >WITH EACH OTHER. Hence, cesium beam clocks and rubidium glass > >cell oscillators are insensitive to variations in the rate > >at which they are "cutting the Earth's fields." > > You are very confused. > > the 'GR correction' only applies once. > > When the clocks are in steady orbit, GR plays no further part. Only an uninformed fool would made such a bogus statement. The GR correction is applied continuously everyday. Ken Seto
From: bz on 24 Jun 2005 09:51 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:ckimb1ppieb1rar3tnn7mtu1dt78krk0pi(a)4ax.com: > On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 18:56:20 +0000 (UTC), bz > <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > >>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>news:3p6lb1d05c132g7big468fqlttlmenjgga(a)4ax.com: >> >>> On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 02:59:21 +0000 (UTC), bz >>> <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >>> >>>>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>>>news:7bmeb1ds7uae0d8fcn62fu4gr54fqqvq5f(a)4ax.com: >>>> >>> ..... >>We need to examine likely models and eliminate those that do not match >>the data. The He+ <--> He+2 huff and puff (as you call it) model is >>BETTER at explaining the data than BaT because it accounts for the >>DIFFERENT radial velocity curves displayed by different elements, >>whereas the BaT model says all elements should be traveling around the >>orbit at the same velocity. Doppler shift shows that they dont. > > Where did you dig up that idea? Which idea, there are several there. 1) all the elements in a star should orbit together 2) spectroscopic double stars show doppler shifts that are consistent for all elements 3) cepheids show different elements moving at different radial velocities wrt orbital/light curve phase. ..... >>> That kind of process could occur completely independently. I have >>> always accepted that many stars are genuinely varying 'intrinsically'. >> >>So, now we have a periodic process taking place within the star, >>independent of its orbiting the Henri Cool Mass. Now you have several >>MORE things to explain. Sir Wm. Of Ockaam will thrash you soundly with >>his razor. > > There is no doubt that many stars DO intinsically change in brightness. > I have never claimed otherwise. According to some, some of these are cepheid. According to HW, cepheids are binary(or more) stars, non ecipsing, non spectroscopy, but none-the-less variable, right? >>>>I have no idea what you are talking about at this moment. >>> >>> it's in the paper about RT Aur...speculating about the phase >>> relationship between radial v and brightness. >> >>are you talking about partial ionisation zones? >>are you talking about the phase lag between the stars maximum brightness >>and its minimum radius? I don't see anything about ionisation delays. >>Tell me which paper we are talking about. > > I don't know which it was. maybe it was Andersen's one about delta cep. When you figure it out, I will be glad to comment on it. ..... >>>>Phenomina observed around neutron stars and black holes. Not >>>>speculation. >>> >>> Lots of speculation. >> >>Observation. > > Observation.... followed by speculatiopn. Everyone is free to speculate. >>>>There may be some SR priests on usenet. >>>>You certainly act like a BaT priest. >>>> >>>>I have no faith in either theory. >>> >>> That's a reasonable start. >> >>That is where science starts and ends. > > but I get the impression that you are well and truly indoctrinated with > Einsteiniana.. You have a mistaken impression. I question everything. >>>>> 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. >>> >>> I cannot see the exaggeration. >> >>That is because your faith is strong. >> >>The words you use such as "solely" and "absolutely" are unjustified >>exaggerations > > Oh? > Can you see some justification or the assumption that the Earth rreally > IS the centre of the niverse? No. And I did not so assert. The phrase 'It is based solely on the notion that the Earth is the centre of the universe' is clearly an exaggeration and unjustified. Einstein made no such assumption, and furthermore you know this strawman has nothing to do with whether or not BaT is valid. The phrase 'There is absolutely no justification for its existence' is another strawman. Neither statement reflects well upon your ability to be objective and to do science. >>> The only reason SR was supported was because it appeared to prop up >>> the religious notion that the Earth was the centre of the universe. >> >>Since it made the speed of light equal to all observers, it did NOT prop >>up any notion that earth was the centre of the universe. Quite to the >>contrary. > > I don't see it that way. You need to learn to look at things from both sides of the argument. -- 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 24 Jun 2005 09:59
H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:c4jmb19afdrcvhp9490jc01ak4f9jr3evi(a)4ax.com: > On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 19:51:30 +0000 (UTC), bz > <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > >>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>news:9hblb1p8suciajqp125svl6h5i0j436439(a)4ax.com: >> >>> On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 14:37:29 +0000 (UTC), bz >>> <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >>> >>>>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>>>news:1moeb1ds0oodcit7ijs0tbe4me4rhq8m4t(a)4ax.com: >>>> >>> >>>>>>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.... >>>> >>>>It would be much stranger if they weren't. >>> >>> It would be very strange, just like pefectly elastic balls bouncing >>> off walls. >> >>or any of a number of wave phenomina. Not much surprise as photons >>appear to have wave and particle properties. > > they have 'wave and particle' properties because nobody has a real clue > as to what they are. They have 'wave and particle properties' because our ideas of 'waves' and 'particles' from the macro world do not fit in the micro world. >>Reflection from non metallic surfaces are more interesting. Most >>metallic reflectors reflect all photons within certain wavelength >>limits. >> >>Non metalics discriminate, at some angles, against some polarizations. > > Yes it is all very interesting. >>>>>>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. >>> >>> Your colleague Craig Markwardt recently informed me that there is >>> nothing in the Earth's atmosphere that could or would unify the speed >>> of light. >> >>I don't know Craig Markwardt. > > He is on one of these threads. I see him. You call him my 'colleague'. I don't know him so I can not be in league with him. >>>>> Yes they are...most of it anyway. >>>> >>>>"Most of it" is going to average to 'zero velocity' wrt the barycenter >>>>involved because the stellar winds are going in all directions and >>>>will average out to zero. >>> >>> all speculation >> >>Point out flaws in my reasoning. > The above was OK but the whole businessof stellar winds is speculative. Not as speculative as BaT. We have actually measured solar wind. >>> ...but anyway, the overall effect will be to increase the >>> critical distance, just as thermal velocity of sources does. >> >>Wouldn't that be 'to decrease the extinction distance'. >> >>And doesn't decreasing the extinction distance also decrease the >>critical distance? > no. Any modification of c+v towards c will increase the critical > distance. Remind me of what you mean by critical distance. >>If they do in the lab, they should in the star. >> >>> There will always be a kind of average speed of all the light leaving >>> a star in the observer's direction. >> >>On the contrary, rapidly rotating stars show broaden doubled lines due >>to doppler shift of light leaving from one side vs light leaving from >>the other side of the star. One side is red shifted and the other is >>blue shifted. They even use these doppler shifts to help detect >>starspots. >> >>http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~acc4/coolpages/imaging.html > > Very dicey. As is all. >>>>> The usual question is what happens when you row ACROSS the river and >>>>> back again. >>>> >>>>MMX has one beam going up-river/down-river and the other beam going >>>>across the river. >>> >>> that's right. ..and the time taken to go across and back is >>> independent of the river speed IF THE BOAT IS ALWAYS ALIGNED >>> PERPENDICULAR TO THE SHORE.. >> >>Your assertion is noted. >> >>> M M and Einstein argued wrongly by assuming that light consists of >>> 'little spheres'. It doesn't. Photons have a 'long axis' and its >>> direction doesn't change when an observer moves past. >> >>Your assertion is noted. >> >>> >>> the time taken to go up and down the river varuies with river flow by >>> the linear doppler expression. >>> In other words the factor 'gamma' should have 'v', not v^2. . >> >> >>but light isn't water. The doppler expression for light has two terms, >>one with v and one with v^2 >> >>nu = nu_0 sqrt(1-v_s^2/c^2)/(1-v_s/c) >>nu = frequency observed >>nu_0 = source frequency >>v_s=source velocity >>c=velocity of light. >> >>http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/reldop3.html >> >>Read this all but transverse doppler shift answers your boat problems. >> >>http://www.du.edu/~jcalvert/phys/doppler.htm >> >>.... > > The BaT doppler equation is much simpler and all I need to know. It is NOT simpler to justify. Due to lack of evidence, it is difficult to justify. -- 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 |