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 27 Jun 2005 15:52 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:o8gub1df8p1bq7r8mig20dd9210e0q4aeb(a)4ax.com... .... > The BaT stands up to all tests and criticism. Nope, you cannot derive the equation for the Sagnac experiment from BaT. It gives a predicted null result so fails that test. There's no point continually repeating this lie Henri, I'll expose it every time. George
From: Henri Wilson on 27 Jun 2005 20:58 On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 20:47:32 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"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. Light would not move a galaxy very far but the momentum gained by the light is still equal to that gained by the galaxy. Whenever light passes close to an atom, it is deflected and so is the atom....by a very small amount...but there are lots of atoms in a million LYs of 'empty' space. > >However your question is irrelevant anyway, >the galaxies that Hubble measured weren't >lensed. That's probably more irrelevant. >>>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? I read it somewhere. > >> 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 fact that we lie on the oiutskirts of the Milky Way and most light comes from the centres of other galaxies is one reason. Your query that if that were the case, then redshift would be independent of distance is corect ..except that since distance is largely estimated by redshift there is a cetain amount of circularity present. Also the other reason I gave IS distance dependent. I say there is more than one reason for the galactic redshift. >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. What do you gain by accepting the BB idea? Nothing. > >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 27 Jun 2005 21:00 On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 20:52:00 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >news:o8gub1df8p1bq7r8mig20dd9210e0q4aeb(a)4ax.com... >... >> The BaT stands up to all tests and criticism. > >Nope, you cannot derive the equation for >the Sagnac experiment from BaT. It gives >a predicted null result so fails that test. >There's no point continually repeating this >lie Henri, I'll expose it every time. Photons are intrinsically sensitive to rotation. That's my answer. The sagnac will work no matter what light speed is used in either direction. > >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 27 Jun 2005 21:11 On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 20:26:32 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"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: Sagnac stuff snipped. >>> >>>> 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. Please provide YOUR explanation. > >>>> 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. George it isn't very hard to understand SR. it is even less difficult to see its flaws. >>>>>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. See, you cannot answer without reverting to conventional aether theory. All you can say is that it happens because SR says it does. Liek ALL Srians, you haven't a clue about this. Quite obviously there is no known mechanism that can unify the speeds of the two pulses, other than a fixed medium. >>> >>>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. GR confuses clock rate changes with gravitational redshift of light. Photons blueshift when falling because they speed up. Clock rates and RF signals remain at the broadcast frequency because 'tick fairies' do not exist. >> >> The clock simply changes charcateristics slightly. > >Nope, that is not the reason given by SR. >Try again. I don't want to even consider the SR explanation. It is nonsense. Clock rate changes are an illusion according to SR. yet the GPS clocks are seen to physically change rates AS MEASURED IN THE ORIGINAL FRAME BY THE ORIGINAL OBSERVER USING THE ORIGINAL TIME REFERENCE OF ONE ORBIT. > >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: Jerry on 27 Jun 2005 21:52
Henri Wilson wrote: > On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 20:52:00 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > >Nope, you cannot derive the equation for > >the Sagnac experiment from BaT. It gives > >a predicted null result so fails that test. > >There's no point continually repeating this > >lie Henri, I'll expose it every time. > > Photons are intrinsically sensitive to rotation. > That's my answer. The sagnac will work no matter > what light speed is used in either direction. Oh, come on, Henri! What do you mean by "Photons are intrinsically sensitive to rotation"? Do you mean that spinning photons speed up? Or slow down? Or maybe curve? Play hide and seek? Blind man's bluff? Wow. Blind man's bluff. You've argued against conventional explanations for interference, since diffraction grating behavior otherwise disproves BaT. Think of it. Diffraction effects are due to photons playing Blind Man's Bluff. What a revolution in science that will be! In your dreams, Henri... Jerry |