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 24 Jun 2005 19:18 On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 13:59:14 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:c4jmb19afdrcvhp9490jc01ak4f9jr3evi(a)4ax.com: > >>>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. That's right. We need an entirely new theory. >>>> 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. the BaT is straightforward ..but with many factors to consider. > >>>> ...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. where the brightness peak goes to inifinity and double imagery commences. in my demo, it occurs when the first small section of the 'wavefront curves' becomes vertical.. Incidentally, I have modifeid these for easier understanding of the second star. I am steadily improving the program. >>>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. According to my sawblade photon model, doppler frequency shift is directly dependent on (c+v)/c 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 24 Jun 2005 19:21 On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 00:27:20 GMT, "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote: > >"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. There is NO GR correction. The clocks are initially given an offset to compensate for their free fall error. After that, the only required corrections are for clock drift and orbit variation. The claimed GR error due to orbit eccentricity is really just a transverse doppler effect. > >Ken Seto > 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 24 Jun 2005 19:33 On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 21:18:24 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >news:rnleb15u44ktsf854icb6g6egpkrpaa1e2(a)4ax.com... >> On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 19:24:29 +0100, "George Dishman" > >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. see http://mb-soft.com/public2/cepheid.html > >>>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! Nope. My latest model says that Cepheids are largish stars with neutron stars orbiting around them at high speed. The larger the central star, the smaller its rotation speed around the barycentre. > >> 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. When I streamline my program I will be able to check real situations with a little more confidence. >>>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. George, I am only interesetd in remote starlight at present. > >> 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. You say one thing and mean another. What do you really think? > >> 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. and that is WHY SR is nonsensical. > >> The same applies to the BB. > >Nope, it is based on the Cosmological >Principle which eliminates there being >any preferred location. It is nonsense. Light smply loses energy as it travels. there are otehr reasons for the galactic redshift. Its main cause is that we lie on the outskirts of our galaxy and most light reaching us is more than proportionally redshifted while escaping from the centres of other galaxies. > >> 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. I doubt if the majority of scientists now supports the BB concept. > >best regards >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 24 Jun 2005 19:33 On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 20:05:24 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"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. PLease enlarge.. > >Do catch up Henri ;-) > >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 24 Jun 2005 19:36
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 19:51:44 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"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. The broadening of lines is rather complicated as it turns out. Brightness peaks can include light from a significant section of the orbit. A 'peak' can contain both blue and red shifted light. > >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. |