Prev: What keeps electrons spinning around their nucleus?
Next: Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids
From: Henri Wilson on 25 Jun 2005 21:10 On 24 Jun 2005 21:49:29 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: > >> You are very confused. > >Henri, >The cesium atoms in a fountain clock are in free fall. >The cesium atoms in a GPS satellite are in free fall. >The cesium atoms in a GLONASS satellite are in free fall. Objects in free fall at the same location need not have the same speeds. > >The rubidium atoms in a ground-based glass cell oscillator >are -not- in free fall. >The rubidium atoms in a GPS satellite -are- in free fall. > >Yet the cesium atoms in a ground-based fountain clock, >a GPS clock, and a GLONASS clock all "tick" at different >rates precisely as predicted by GR. Figures please....not just the dreams of DHRs. > >Yet the rubidium atoms in a ground-based glass cell >oscillator and a GPS clock all "tick" at different rates >precisely as predicted by GR. Figures please. > >You claim that the GR prediction is sheer coincidence, that >the reason for their different rates is that the free-fall >cesium atoms in a fountain clock, the non-free-fall >rubidium atoms in a glass cell oscillator, the free fall >cesium or rubidium atoms in a GPS satellite, and the free- >fall cesium atoms in a GLONASS satellite cut through >Earth's magnetic fields at different rates. I wouldn't say the fountain clock atoms are in free fall at all. Not just the amgnetic field, there is also the gravitational field adn god knows what else. >So let me reiterate: > >GPS satellites orbit in six orbital planes, and cross Earth's >magnetic fields at different angles. YET ALL GPS CLOCKS 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." > >GLONASS satellites orbit in three orbital planes, and cross >Earth's magnetic fields at different angles. YET ALL GLONASS >CLOCKS ARE CONSISTENT WITH EACH OTHER. Hence, cesium beam >clocks are insensitive to variations in the rate at which >they are "cutting the Earth's fields." > >Your argument is is totally bogus. Jerry, I hate to disappoint you but the only correction needed in orbiting clocks is due to freedom from gravitatiuonal self compression and other factors such as cutting 'fields'. An approximate 'free fall' correction is applied before launch for convenience. The clocks are subsequently software fine-tuned when in orbit. Any similarity between the applied correction and the GR prediction is either purely coincidental or a product of DHR dreaming. If it was ever shown to be true, then I suggest you start looking for a 'local aether' around Earth..because that is what Ensteiniana is based on. > >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 26 Jun 2005 06:17 On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 21:03:38 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"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: >> 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. Einstein effectively said, "there is apparently no aether... but let's just carry on as though there is one. Instead of having a light carrying medium to determine light speed, we will make it constant by deinition." > >>>> 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 ;-) George, here is a new theory. Light does not bounce off the sagnac mirrors like little round balls bouncing from moving brick walls. Photons have a 'long axis'. They are like arrows. When they reflect, they normally maintain their orientation in space. However any minute movement of a mirror will change that orientation slightly. Photons recombining with different orientations will interfere. Since the sense of orientation of the two sagnac beams is in opposite directions, any rotation of the interferometer results in fringe shifts. >>>>>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. George, my genuine belief is that physics knows virtually nothing about the structure of light. > >>>> 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. The animation seems to make that clear. I am surprised that this is the case, though. > >>>>>>>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. It has the same equations and basic logic. SR provides every observer with a personal aether, that's the only difference. SR contractions cannot be REAL physical changes. Lorentz's are. Yet SRians claim that GPS clocks REALLY change. So my conclucion is that SR is a gigantic hoax. > >>>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. George, you did not even understand my question. The sources are moving and there are NO observers. >>>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. I am not going to try to explain here. >>>> 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. the length of a rod is not affecterd by a variation in speed. Similarly, the rate of a clock remains the same. > >> 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 I want YOUR answer. > >>>> 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. George, I am quite well aware that things appear to change characteristics when light is used for communication. So what? Observer speed does not cause physical changes in whatever is observed. 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 26 Jun 2005 06:19 On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 08:34:12 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >news:p36pb1pd728qc5vdmv55ge0i4nsp0r5sbm(a)4ax.com... >> 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.. > >IIRC, Ritz published his theory in 1908, >Sagnac performed his experiment in 1913. > >Our real discussion is in another reply >but each time you say it hasn't been done, >I'll point out it has. I can understand if >you don't have time to address the result, >at least stop pretending it doesn't exist. I think my latest 'photon axis' theory explains the sagnac effect quite admirably. > >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 26 Jun 2005 06:27 On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 10:07:32 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >news:ag5pb1p7a4e8u29ohb7naivkad0g7co5nn(a)4ax.com... >> On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 21:18:24 +0100, "George Dishman" >> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >> wrote: >>>> 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. > >>>> 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. > >If you are serious, that would be why your >strawman alternative to SR is nonsensical. It passes all tests though. > >>>> The same applies to the BB. >>> >>>Nope, it is based on the Cosmological >>>Principle which eliminates there being >>>any preferred location. >> >> It is nonsense. > >The Cosmological Principle says the universe >is homogenous and isotropic at large scales. >What is nonsensical about that? > >> Light smply loses energy as it travels. > >Tired light doesn't produce a workable model. >The SNe Ia data for example rules it out. It isn't hard to 'rule things in or out'. Some fool will always believe you. > > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm > >> 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. > >That would produce a shift which was independent >of distance. The observed shift is proportional. Indeed. That's why there are other reasons. Light is bent by matter fields. When light bends, it imparts a minute momentum change to whatever bends it. Where does the energy associated with that change come from George? The light, of course. > >>>> 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. > >You have some bizarre ideas. The only group I >know of is Narlikar and a few others and even >they have given up on a truly steady state >model and gone over to quasi-steady state in >which the universe shrinks to a small size >then rebounds pretty much as in the BB. there are little bangs continuously. The BB theory is about as useles as the "god made the Earth in seven days" one. What came before the BB? Who made god? Bloody ridiculous!! > > http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0211036 > >but their work has significant errors > > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/stdystat.htm > >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: George Dishman on 26 Jun 2005 06:42
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:d80tb1lqhu2q4mobb0k56sqg6b8ktugmd7(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 08:34:12 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: > >> >>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >>news:p36pb1pd728qc5vdmv55ge0i4nsp0r5sbm(a)4ax.com... >>> 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.. >> >>IIRC, Ritz published his theory in 1908, >>Sagnac performed his experiment in 1913. >> >>Our real discussion is in another reply >>but each time you say it hasn't been done, >>I'll point out it has. I can understand if >>you don't have time to address the result, >>at least stop pretending it doesn't exist. > > I think my latest 'photon axis' theory explains the sagnac effect quite > admirably. It doesn't even make sense, a shift perpendicular to the direction of propagation does not change the phase. You even agreed that you had noted that a lateral shift doesn't change the position of the fringes in your own experience of using an interferometer so that red herring was eliminated. George |