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 26 Jun 2005 20:22 On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 11:42:53 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"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. But my new theory says the photons will reunite with their axes non-parallel when the apparatus is rotating.. I say that can cause interference. Each photon is like a little gyro. It it tilted at each reflection from a rotating/moving mirror. > >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 20:33 On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 13:32:48 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >news:tnusb1dq91v87p1871u99j0k61govdfs1b(a)4ax.com... >> On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 21:03:38 +0100, "George Dishman" >>> >>>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. > >Then it isn't Ritz's, that theory remains >falsified by Sagnac. Nor is what you say next >a theory, it is just an idea that might be >turned into a theory after a lot work. > >> 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. > >However, we know as you said that the classical >analysis provides accurate predictions for the >behaviour of an interferometer so when you try >to turn that idea into an actual theory, you >will find the math will predict no shift. As I >said, the ball is in your court to produce those >equations and the proof that they are accurate >when applied to all existing experiments. That >is what constitutes a theory IMHO. I will think more about it when I get time. >>>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. > >Henri, my genuine belief is that you know >virtually nothing about modern physics. >The theory that applies to light and its >interactions with matter is QED and that >produces predictions more accurate than >any other physical theory, to twenty >significant digits in some cases I believe, >so we know more about light than anything >else. Some aspects maybe. > >On the other hand, _we_ are discussing the >physics of light at the level of the second >decade of the 20th century. George, does 21st centruy physics know anything about what light is doing when NOT being observed? > >>> >>>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. > >Indeed, sometimes these things are counter- >intuitive. Also note that what finally >convinced you is that you did the animation >yourself. That's one reason why I sometimes >don't answer questions but instead ask you >(and others) to work it out yourself. It's >not laziness on my part (at least not always) >but it is sometimes the only way to end an >argument and reach agreement. > >>>>>>>>>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. > >Wrong again, all the equations are identical >but most of the philosophical background is >diametrically opposed. > >> SR provides every observer with a personal aether, that's the only >> difference. > >Wrong again. I'm not going to provide the SR >explaination as I am waiting for you to show >you know it, and because you would only treat >my reply as though I am trying to convince you >SR is correct. I'm not, I'm trying to get you >to either show you know SR or admit you don't >Hopefully you might become curious enough to >find out for yourself. > >> SR contractions cannot be REAL physical changes. Lorentz's are. > >Well done, SR say that clocks cannot be physically >affected by an aether since there isn't one. That >is a fundamental difference from LET which relies >entirely on aether interactions. > >> Yet SRians claim that GPS clocks REALLY change. > >The satellite clocks do not _change_ between >ticking on the ground and ticking in orbit but >when on the ground they can be synchronised >with other ground clocks and when in orbit >they have to have a frequency alteration >applied to remain synchronised. There is a >subtle difference there that might help you. The satellite clocks tick an N ticks pr orbit before launch and N +n ticks when in orbit. Their rates have physically changed . > >> So my conclucion is that SR is a gigantic hoax. > >Your conclusion instead should be that everyone >else is aware of another factor that you are not >taking into account. Everybody else in brainwashed into believing that all starlight travel at c wrt little planet Earth. >>> >>>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. > >I did but the way you presented it allows the >two pulses to be affected differently so I >offered you an alternative question which >highlights the same aspect but isn't open to >that ambiguity. For example I could simply >say that the speed might be determined by >the refractive index of the ISM, it doesn't >move the conversation forward at all. > >> The sources are moving and there are NO observers. > >If there were no observers, you have no >measure of speed. It is fundamental to >understanding SR that an "observer" is >the measuring instrument. I didn't mention speed. I asked why the two pulses should travel TOGETHER.... >>>> >>>> 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. > >There you are then, you know part of SR. > >>>> 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. > >My ability to answer wouldn't prove _you_ >understood SR which is the claim you made: > >>>>>> Of course I understand SR. > >If _you_ understand SR, _you_ should be able >to give that SR answer, at least for the >part of the rate difference which is due to >speed if not the gravitational part. The clock simply changes charcateristics slightly. > >>>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? > >So I am still waiting for you to demonstrate >your claim to understand SR and allowing for >the propagation time in the GPS system won't >provide an answer. > >> Observer speed does not cause physical changes in whatever is observed. > >That is what SR says, it is the opposite of >LET. Now carry on and explain what _does_ >cause the observed effects according to SR. No obserevd effects obey SR. > >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 27 Jun 2005 14:27 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:ikhub1p5djpue2qqn5jo9ustpkl49p6i5o(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 11:42:53 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: >>"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. > > But my new theory says the photons will reunite with their axes > non-parallel > when the apparatus is rotating.. > I say that can cause interference. What you say counts for nothing in science (the same applies to me too). Write down the equations of your new theory, apply them to the experiment and demonstrate that they predict fringes. Don't have any equations yet? Then you don't have a theory. > Each photon is like a little gyro. It it tilted at each reflection from a > rotating/moving mirror. George
From: George Dishman on 27 Jun 2005 15:26 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:6phub118e0sh0i9ji40kn9mr8qj586cimp(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 13:32:48 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: .... >>However, we know as you said that the classical >>analysis provides accurate predictions for the >>behaviour of an interferometer so when you try >>to turn that idea into an actual theory, you >>will find the math will predict no shift. As I >>said, the ball is in your court to produce those >>equations and the proof that they are accurate >>when applied to all existing experiments. That >>is what constitutes a theory IMHO. > > I will think more about it when I get time. OK, as long as you see that the Ritzian model (which is the only ballistic model I know of) is falsified by Sagnac, you will understand my occasional corrections if you say BaT "passes all tests" or something like that. If you know of another "BaT", I'm willing to reconsider of course. .... >>On the other hand, _we_ are discussing the >>physics of light at the level of the second >>decade of the 20th century. > > George, does 21st centruy physics know anything about what light is doing > when > NOT being observed? I suggest you read Feynman's little book on the subject. .... >>>>>>>>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. >> >>Wrong again, all the equations are identical >>but most of the philosophical background is >>diametrically opposed. >> >>> SR provides every observer with a personal aether, that's the only >>> difference. >> >>Wrong again. I'm not going to provide the SR >>explaination as I am waiting for you to show >>you know it, and because you would only treat >>my reply as though I am trying to convince you >>SR is correct. I'm not, I'm trying to get you >>to either show you know SR or admit you don't >>Hopefully you might become curious enough to >>find out for yourself. >> >>> SR contractions cannot be REAL physical changes. Lorentz's are. >> >>Well done, SR say that clocks cannot be physically >>affected by an aether since there isn't one. That >>is a fundamental difference from LET which relies >>entirely on aether interactions. >> >>> Yet SRians claim that GPS clocks REALLY change. >> >>The satellite clocks do not _change_ between >>ticking on the ground and ticking in orbit but >>when on the ground they can be synchronised >>with other ground clocks and when in orbit >>they have to have a frequency alteration >>applied to remain synchronised. There is a >>subtle difference there that might help you. > > The satellite clocks tick an N ticks pr orbit before launch and N +n ticks > when > in orbit. Their rates have physically changed. Wrong again. Your efforts to convince me that you understand SR are not going well. I've left your previous attempts quoted for your review. >>> So my conclucion is that SR is a gigantic hoax. >> >>Your conclusion instead should be that everyone >>else is aware of another factor that you are not >>taking into account. > > Everybody else in brainwashed into believing that all starlight travel at > c wrt > little planet Earth. Trying to divert the conversation to a trivial strawman isn't going to cover up your inability to demonstrate any understanding of SR. In fact if I were to imagine you were serious, it would just prove my point beyond any shadow of doubt. >>>>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. >> >>I did but the way you presented it allows the >>two pulses to be affected differently so I >>offered you an alternative question which >>highlights the same aspect but isn't open to >>that ambiguity. For example I could simply >>say that the speed might be determined by >>the refractive index of the ISM, it doesn't >>move the conversation forward at all. >> >>> The sources are moving and there are NO observers. >> >>If there were no observers, you have no >>measure of speed. It is fundamental to >>understanding SR that an "observer" is >>the measuring instrument. > > I didn't mention speed. I asked why the two pulses should travel > TOGETHER.... Well Henri, SR doesn't say it is because they like holding hands, so if you want anyone to think you do understand SR as you claimed above, you tell me. >>>>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. >> >>My ability to answer wouldn't prove _you_ >>understood SR which is the claim you made: Do you understand why _you_ have to provide the answer to substantiate your claim: >>>>>>> Of course I understand SR. >>If _you_ understand SR, _you_ should be able >>to give that SR answer, at least for the >>part of the rate difference which is due to >>speed if not the gravitational part. > > The clock simply changes charcateristics slightly. Nope, that is not the reason given by SR. Try again. George
From: George Dishman on 27 Jun 2005 15:47
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:csfub19h5q9rhh1b3vm56o6ra72end90ho(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 12:00:37 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: > >> >>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >>news:7e0tb1hireh94jusmtbrhh5ia859vbi54l(a)4ax.com... >>> On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 10:07:32 +0100, "George Dishman" >>> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >>> wrote: > >>>> >>>>> 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'. >> >>Indeed, the process is called "science". >> >>> Some fool will always believe you. >> >>Some fools prefer religious beliefs to hard >>facts. I'll stick with the science. >> >>>> 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. >> >>Indeed, and the momentum comes from the object >>doing the bending. > > No, George,... did you miss your introductory mechanics classes? No, I misread your question, sorry. You are right. >>> Where does the energy associated with that change come from George? >>> The light, of course. >> >>From the object doing the bending of course. > > No George, we are talking about the momentum GAINED by the object causing > the > bending of the light. where does THAT come from? Energy = force * distance. How far do you think a photon displaces a galaxy? If you don't do the maths, your suggestions have a high risk of being ludicrously wrong. However your question is irrelevant anyway, the galaxies that Hubble measured weren't lensed. [context replaced:] >>>>> 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. >> >>Novae are observed regularly but since >>those are explosions in space, they have >>no relevance to Big Bang theory so how >>does that justify your bizarre claim >>regarding the "majority of scientists"? > > there will be the occasional super-super-nova Equally irrelevant, what is your justification for your claim about the support of the "majority" of scientists? > BB theory simply appealed to the gullible majority. > > They saw a redshift and blindly accepted that it signified velocity. Zwicky suggested Tired Light within a couple of years. The suggestion has been tested and it was obvious it had problems matching the observations some decades ago. The recent SNe results are direct evidence. If you have a workable alternative, feel free to bring it forward. The CMBR, its angular power spectrum, elemental abundances and a number of other independent observations all tell the same story whether we like it or not. Personally, I find a creation model surprising but I'm not going to discard reality out of prejudice. YMMV. George |