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 24 Jun 2005 14:51 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:uaimb1tabt41ed0kdvjrbc5r9097d6over(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 14:00:08 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine > <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote: .... >>As for BaT's "time compression" -- first I've heard of it; >>my usual postulate regarding BaT is a universal time co-ordinate >>system (suggested by Henri's comments that a clock can only >>have one measurement regardless of the velocity of an observer >>in motion relative to that clock). > > Time compression comes about when the light emitted from a large section > of a > star's orbit arrives at an observer over a much shorter time interval. All > information occuring in a quarter period may arrive in a fraction of that > time. > Thus that information is compressed in time. ... That is a reasonable description of one consequence of BaT but note it also means that light from an extended period covering a range of radial speed would arrive in a short period, thus spectral lines should show broadening at periods of high brightness. I don't know whether that is true of Cepheids or not but then I'm not trying to justify a point of argument. George
From: George Dishman on 24 Jun 2005 15:01 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:ckgmb196kjue70ho263pvha4kpvc0ns2jk(a)4ax.com... > On 23 Jun 2005 11:29:44 -0500, Craig Markwardt > <craigmnet(a)REMOVEcow.physics.wisc.edu> wrote: ... >>Whether or not [BaT] is successful in matching some light curves is >>irrelevant, since there are so many other things that it fails. > > It fails nowhere. It fails Sagnac. George
From: George Dishman on 24 Jun 2005 15:05 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:ja5lb1lnt5h52n0vtl14n0rrfd815d9of3(a)4ax.com... > These are all either TWLS experiments or OWLS isotropy experiments with > all > parts mutually at rest. > In that latter case the BaT expects OWLS to be isotropic. > > No experiment has directly measured the speed of light from a moving > source. Sagnac measures the anisotropy of light from a moving source. > Until recently, the means were not available to do so. It was done in 1913. Do catch up Henri ;-) George
From: George Dishman on 24 Jun 2005 16:03 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:ahneb1hnobemhm9f616ptt31klrenqiuuv(a)4ax.com... > 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: [Henri wrote:] >>>>> George, I don't have time to discuss the Sagnac effect any more. >>>> [Henri wrote:] >>> 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. >> >>No, what I have shown you is that Sagnac rules >>out BaT. > > I don't accept that. I know you never will regardless of any evidence I might present. You are welcome to your beliefs. > As far as I can see the effect is caused by something > unrelated to light speed. That is irrelevant, The BaT prediction is that the experiment should produce a null result so whatever produces the effect, BaT fails to predict it. > Rotation has some kind of absolute reference in the Earth's vicinity.. Again, however you think of it, BaT says the reference should be the source. >>> 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. All physical theories are "maths models". f=ma is just a model for the effect of a force on a mass. > You have to also consider the physics. Aether theory is > the physics behind SR. There is no aether in SR and none of the phenomena of LET (for which it relies on the aether) occurs, yet the physics of SR still produces the same Lorentz Transforms. Yet again you are simply showing that you have no understanding of the physics that explains that. >>> 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. Sorry Henri, denial is no proof especially when you are talking to people who are well aware of the physics underlying SR. >>>>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.. That's OK, the ball is in your court. The world has been waiting since 1913 so a few more years won't hurt, and we have a working theory to use in the meantime ;-) >>>>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. It shoudn't and doesn't in either BaT or SR so says little. Henri, if it did you would need your "tick fairies". Think of light going through a pane of glass. The frequency must be the same whether you count passing wavefronts inside or outside the glass, what changes must be the wavelength. >>> 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. Ritz says the fringe _position_ is independent of light speed, there should be no shift as a function of speed. Perhaps it would be useful to draw a couple of points together here, especially if you are short of time to continue the discussion, I know I am. In Ritz's theory, light behaves ballistically in a Newtionian space and time. It is emitted at the a speed which is the vector sum of c in some direction and the speed of the source. You have also made the behaviour on striking a mirror clear: "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:vi72b1t8hpjrkok7qfjbrvq7db6vedmg00(a)4ax.com... >>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>news:202va1lrs7ndollrk8u7lrpdmuue4okd63(a)4ax.com: >>> >>> Consider a mirror approaching me at 0.5c. .... >>> The experiment involves sending a light pulse towards it so that the >>> pulse will strike it when it is a) 30000 m away, and b) when it is 3000 >>> m away. In both cases, the pulse returns to me at 2c. .... > The light reflects from the mirror at the incident speed ...which is 1.5 c > wrt > the mirror. So the return speed is 1.5 + the mirror speed, or 2c. > > Get it? "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:opj9b1lolpte4v6koigi64rrps10par0vh(a)4ax.com... .... > Besides we are discussing the ballistics of an elastic ball bouncing from > a > moving wall. That only leaves the detector and again you have made your views clear and i agree entirely, the behaviour of interferometric detactors is well characterised regardless of our understanding of the mechanism of interference: "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:1moeb1ds0oodcit7ijs0tbe4me4rhq8m4t(a)4ax.com... .... > I think all interference, scattering, refraction etc effects are still > explained only by classssical wave theory. Put those together and you get an unamibuous null prediction for Sagnac which we know is incorrect, the iFOG industry is built on the failure of BaT. Anyway, if you want to leave Sagnac until another day, I think that summarises all we covered in the past weeks. Oh, one other, you made a comment a few days ago (I can't be bothered to look for the reference) that the light is rotated in the same direction for both beams which is also correct though it was a point of contention some time back. We are now in agreement on that point. >>>>>>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. Above you clearly admitted you have no knowledge even of the existence of SR's physics which is an alternative to an aether. >>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. "How else ..."? You say you understand SR so why don't you tell me? I'll give you a clue, it doesn't involve an aether. However, let me rephrase the problem in such a way that the difference between LET and SR may be better highlighted. A flash of light is emitted from source S and its speed is measured by two observers (light-speed meters), A and B at point X. A is moving towards the source while B is moving away from the source. X S ---------+--------> A --> <-- B Note that SR says the clocks and rulers comprising the light-speed meters are not slowed or shrunk in their own rest frames, that is part of the aether- based explanation. If you really understand SR, you can do it without an aether. >>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. Nope, that is LET again, SR does not use that. The shrinkage and slowing are _effects_ not causes. > Trouble ids, IT BREAKS DOWN. ....because v appears as quadratic instead of > linear. I have no idea what you mean by that. >>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. You mean you don't know. > 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? Good, now you are starting to ask the right kind of question. When you can use the physics of SR to answer that question, then I will believe you when you say >>> Of course I understand SR. In fact you won't need to tell me, I will see it for myself. In the meantime just be aware that I know why, Jerry, BZ, David and many others know why and it's the part that you have consistently shown you do not understand. It really would make me happy to think you knew the answer and simply didn't accept it but I really can't read your answers that way. best regards George
From: George Dishman on 24 Jun 2005 16:18
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:rnleb15u44ktsf854icb6g6egpkrpaa1e2(a)4ax.com... > 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'. The corners can be very curved. The worst I had was documenting a thryristor close to trigerring due to thermal drift. It was almost identical to your curve for RT Aur. However, both an RO and your program fail in one point, if you checked the Hip. curve I mentioned, there is a clear kink in the 'straight' part. >>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. Nope. Farther away means slower. Check Kepler! > 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. I meant what aren't they seen as spectroscopic binaries. However, these weren't serious objections, I was just making the point that such a style of argumentation is very limited. >>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. BaT is falsified by Sagnac so your excercise can never be anything but 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. Of course not, and neither of us think that. > Only a person who still clings to the religious notion that the Earth is > the > centre of the universe would want to believe that. I completely agree, it would be nonsensical. > The same applies to the BB. Nope, it is based on the Cosmological Principle which eliminates there being any preferred location. > It is purely a creationist theory. True, but it is a scientific theory, not a matter of faith. It is the only scientific model we have that fits the observations and makes quantitative predictions, though I think there is a lot more to learn yet. best regards George |