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 28 Jun 2005 21:48 On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 21:51:18 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >news:r781c1hq882kl0tl7p1lj089gi0a24u5k5(a)4ax.com... >> 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. > >It's technobabble and irrelevant since you >are already aware that the behaviour of >the interferometer in the Sagnac experiment >can be predicted by the classical method. > >At least your having to resort to a comment >like that shows the effort we have put in >has demonstrated to you that none of the >other "explanations" you came up with worked. > >Sagnac falsifies Ritz's ballistic theory >(BaT) and you don't have an alternative. Nah. Too many unknowns. >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: Arthur Dent on 28 Jun 2005 23:21 Henri Wilson wrote: > On 27 Jun 2005 18:52:28 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > >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 > > I suppose you are one of those people who believe that all photons are little, > round, perfectly elastic and identical dimensionless points. > > They are not. If that were true there would be no way they would differ from > 'nothing'. They a long, pointed, cigar shaped aggregations of standing EM > waves. You are bullshitting, H. Sorry to have to say that, but you have no evidence and lose credibility when you make such assertions. They have a long axis and an effective cross-section. > > If you shoot an arrow at a 45 degree wall, moving sideways, how is the arrow > rotated/deflected? If you aim a row boat at the opposite bank of a river, it still drifts downstream with the current. You have to aim it partly upstream to go directly across. If the rowboat is a round corracle, that doesn't change the vector addition of velocities. If the rowboat is spinning like a propellor or a paddle wheel, that changes nothing either. AD.
From: Jerry on 29 Jun 2005 04:27 Henri Wilson wrote: > On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 21:51:18 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: > >Sagnac falsifies Ritz's ballistic theory > >(BaT) and you don't have an alternative. > > Nah. Too many unknowns. What unknowns? 1) Sagnac effects are easily explained within the context of conventional theory. 2) BaT is unable to explain Sagnac. 3) Henri states that BaT is nevertheless correct, and conventional theory is wrong, because of unknown factors that he is incapable of naming. Jerry
From: Craig Markwardt on 29 Jun 2005 12:40 H@..(Henri Wilson) writes: > On 26 Jun 2005 12:20:07 -0500, Craig Markwardt > <craigmnet(a)REMOVEcow.physics.wisc.edu> wrote: > > > > >H@..(Henri Wilson) writes: > > > >> On 23 Jun 2005 11:29:44 -0500, Craig Markwardt > >> <craigmnet(a)REMOVEcow.physics.wisc.edu> wrote: > >> > >> > > >> >H@..(Henri Wilson) writes: > >> >> On 21 Jun 2005 10:14:39 -0500, Craig Markwardt > >> >> <craigmnet(a)REMOVEcow.physics.wisc.edu> wrote: > >> >> > >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> You are forgetting that light speed is unified by the Earth's atmosphere. > >> >> > > >> >> >Since the atmosphere has little to do with the fundamental principles > >> >> >of optical and radio interferometry, your comment is irrelevant. In > >> >> >fact, interferometry has been successfully performed *outside* the > >> >> >earth's atmosphere (Space VLBI, using the VSOP satellite), where your > >> >> >so-called "unification" is irrelevant. And finally, let's not forget > >> >> >that there are no known properties of the earth's atmosphere which > >> >> >could "unify" the speed of light. > >> >> > >> >> That's a strange thing to say. > >> >> What do you understand by the term 'extinction'? > >> > > >> >Extinction is a reduction in intensity. > >> > >> Extinction is the tendency of light to adjust to the 'natural' lightspeed > >> inside a medium. > > > >Giving your unsubstantiated and unconventional claims a conventional > >name does not make them right. Extinction has a well-defined > >astronomical meaning which has nothing to do with what you said. > >> > >> >Classical interferometry will work with or without the presence of atmospheric (or other) > >> >extinction, so your diversion is irrelevant. I note that you ignored > >> >space VLBI, which a counterexample to your atmosphere-enables- > >> >interferometry claim. > > > >I note, no response. I note, your continued lack of response. > > > >> > > >> >> >> >Thus the > >> >> >> >proper statement is, emitted starlight *does* appear to travel at c > >> >> >> >w.r.t. Earth. Your statement belies an obvious misunderstanding of > >> >> >> >Relativity. In it, light *must* travel at the same speed with respect > >> >> >> >to all frames. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> That is an unproven postulate, nothing more. > >> >> > > >> >> >Hardly. There have been many attempts to test the constancy of the > >> >> >speed of light. To cite a few, > >> >> > > >> >> > Schaefer, B. 1999, PRL, 82, 4964 (constancy of c with frequency) > >> >> > > >> >> > Will, C. 2001, Living Rev. Rel. 4, 4 (LLI tests in sec 2.1) > >> >> > http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-2001-4 > >> >> > > >> >> > Wolf, P. & Gerrard, P. 1997, PRA, 56, 4405 (isotropicity of c) > >> >> > >> >> 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. > >> >> Until recently, the means were not available to do so. > >> > > >> >Whether or not that is true, it is a diversion (partly of my own > >> >making). You originally, complained, "Emitted starlight does NOT > >> >travel at c wrt little planet Earth. How could it?" You appeal to > >> >intuition but not substance. Relativity answers the "how could it," > >> >question by assuming that it is fundamental property of spacetime. > >> > >> There is no 'spacetime'. It is purely a maths concept. > > > >Again, your appeals to intuition are irrelevant. Whether or not > >"spacetime" exists, the concept of Minkowski (and then GR) spacetime > >is useful because it provides testable predictions (and has been > >tested many times). > > What difference does it make whether you plot something in 3D + time or 4D? It makes no difference how you or I "plot" it, since relativity is not about plotting. Your question is irrelevant. > >> >Whether or not that is a intuitively satisfactory answer to you is > >> >irrelevant. [ And, attempts have been made to test this postulate. ] > >> > >> No attempts have been made... because Einstein said it is impossible to measure > >> OWLS. > >> > >> >> >> >> It is quite ludicrous to think that light from a star emitted at one point in > >> >> >> >> its orbit should travel at the same speed towards little planet Earth as light > >> >> >> >> emitted half an orbit later. > >> >> >> >> Emitted light has only one speed reference AND IT CERTAINLY ISN'T LITTLE PLANET > >> >> >> >> EARTH. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >That is one (refuted) possibility. Another possibility is that light > >> >> >> >travels at the same speed with respect to all measurers. By your > >> >> >> >logic, it would be ludicrous for binary pulsars to emit radiation at > >> >> >> >the same speed w.r.t. earth at the different positions in its orbit, > >> >> >> >and yet... it does! To very high precision. Nature does not exist to > >> >> >> >satisfy your intuition or sense of ludocrity. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Then why do most variable stars brightness curves exactly match The BaT > >> >> >> predictions based on their light traveling at c+v, at least for a significant > >> >> >> part of the way? > >> >> > > >> >> >While your "theory" might be sufficient to explain single-band optical > >> >> >light curves, your "theory" also makes other predictions that can be > >> >> >falsified. For example, it predicts that "variable" stars are really > >> >> >in binary orbits, and would have binary orbital Doppler shifts, which > >> >> >they do *not*. > >> >> > >> >> Many do...as predicted. > >> > > >> >Your claim is unsubstantiated. The burden is actually on you to show > >> >stars whose Doppler signatures *exactly* match your claimed orbital > >> >parameters, "as predicted," and that the results are reasonable. In > >> >fact, there are many solitary pulsating stars which do not have > >> >orbital Doppler signatures. > >> > >> We shall see. > > > >I note your lack of substantiation. > > You appear completely ignorant of the principles of the BaT and its > rammifications. Since it appears to be solely a "theory" which exists in your mind, which you change at will (see for example message ID ikhub1p5djpue2qqn5jo9ustpkl49p6i5o @ 4ax.com), that is hardly a criticism. > You are never likely to admit you have been completely wrong. What I admit is irrelevant. > The BaT provides simple answer to most astronomical mysteries. It predicts and > matches the majority of obserevd light curves. It explains why variation can be > virtually dead constant over long periods. Unfortunately your definition of "most astronomical mysteries" is basically just "stellar light curves," as far as I can divine. In fact, astronomy consists of far more than stellar light curves (as I've pointed out multiple times), so your comment is unsubstantiated. > > The BaT stands up to all tests and criticism. Light leaves its source at c wrt > the source. > Light does not leave its source at c wrt little planet Earth. You continue to demonstrate your ignorance of relativity; in it, light travels at the speed c with respect to *all* frames at all times. Thus, your comment is irrelevant. > >> >Since interferometry is fundamentally about path/time length > >> >differences between two observers, your "Doppler shift" comment is > >> >irrelevant. Your claim (above) that interferometry works because of > >> >the earth's atmosphere is refuted because the earth's atmosphere is > >> >not required (space VLBI). > >> > >> Where did I say that 'interferometry only works because of the Earth's > >> atmosphere'? > > > >Note: your misquote. > > > >What Markwardt actually wrote: > > : ... Radio VLBI observations of planets, > > : spacecraft, stars and distant galaxies would not work properly if the > > : speed of light were not c (and they do work properly). > > > >Wilson replies: > > : You are forgetting that light speed is unified by the Earth's atmosphere. > > > >The speed of light is fundamental to stable interferometry. In your > >"theory" the speed of light is not constant hence it would prevent > >interferometry from working properly. *You* made the claim that I was > >"forgetting" about the Earth's atmosphere, as if it were important to > >the operation of interferometry, so the burden is on you to > >substantiate your claims. And in fact, inteferometry works in space > >(cf. Space VLBI) where your supposed "unification" of light speed is > >irrelevant, thus making the entire thrust of your argument irrelevant. > > Angular errors would be insignificantly small and could not be separated from > fact. How would you know what was right and what was out by a fraction of a > second? I note your lack of substantiation. "Angular errors would be insignificantly small" ... the burden would be on you to show how small the errors would be and that they would be insignificant, which you did not do. In fact, VLBI regularly achieves sub-milliarcsecond precisions, and pulsar timing can achieve a few tens-microarcsecond precisions, which limits any variation in the speed of light as observed at earth to less than a few km/s. Finally, regarding your "fraction of a second" question, since nano-second absolute timing precision can be achieved, any difference that was a significant fraction of a second would be immediately obvious. > > > >> > >> Your logic is circular. > >> All the accepted properties of pulsars are basd on constant light speed...so > >> naturally your conclusions will support that principle. > > > >Actually, that is not true. It is possible to do pulsar timing with > >such high precision that one can turn the problem around and test > >alternate theories of spacetime and radiation propagation > >(eg. Lorimer, Living Reviews). And, given it is possible to measure > >eclipses consistent with the orbit solution; and that there are known > >double binary pulsars whose timing signatures are mutually highly > >consistent, your comment is unsubstantiated. > > There is no reason do believe that the rotation of pulsars significantly > involves the BaT anyway. The velocities might be are too small to worry about. Interesting. Despite the fact that pulsars are stars, and they are in binary orbits, and they emit radiation -- all the things that you claim to model -- you suddenly claim they don't involve your theory? Incredible. The velocities might be too small? In fact since pulsars are typically in highly evolved systems, the orbits are very tight and the speeds are quite high, compared to main sequence binaries. > > Lorimer, D., http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-2001-5 > > > >> If you approach the pulsar phenomenon entirely from a BaT aspect, you will find > >> simple explanations for the points you raise. > > > >The burden would be on you to provide that substantiation. Otherwise > >your claim of what I "will find" is irrelevant. > > Well, it is not easy to obtain precise information about pulsars...so I can > hardly even worry about them. An irrelevant comment. Your lack of skill in finding information doesn't make your "theory" any more correct. In fact, I have pointed out a good on-line review article to get started, which has follow-up references. > >> >> The radial velocity curve of cepheid RT Aur is precisely that of a star in > >> >> elliptical orbit, ecc=~0.25. ... > >> > > >> >Unlikely. RT Aur has an pulsation period of 3.7 days. If one were to > >> >interpret that as an orbital period, then by Kepler's law, the mass > >> >density in the orbit would need to be unphysically large. For > >> >example, for its estimated 5 M_sun mass, the orbit (0.08 AU) would be > >> >smaller than the size of the star itself (0.18 AU)! Furthermore, if > >> >we examine the well-known velocity curve, which has a semi-amplitude > >> >of +/- 16 km/s, one finds an approximate projected orbital radius of > >> >0.005 AU, which is is improbably small (*), so small that again, the > >> >star would not fit inside! Therefore your claim is incredible. Even > >> >a simple check of your numbers with basic Kepler's laws would show > >> >that you don't know what you are talking about. > >> > >> I have been through this with Bob (bz). > >> there are no problems asociated wih having a neutron star orbiting a cepheid, > >> particularly when you take into account that the estimated size, period and > >> temperature are based on Einsteiniana. > > > >The period is based on "Einsteiniana?" Whatever. In fact, the > >pulsation period is directly observable. > > Not necessarily. At larger distances, BaT 'time compression' can occur, giving > a distorted figure. Whether or not this is true, the *amount* of "compression" is relevant. I note that you did not provide this information. > >And the color temperature is > >directly observable as well. And since cepheid distances are well > >know via the classical geometric method of parallax, the sizes are > >known two. Stellar atmospheres is hardly "Einsteiniana." Thus your > >comments are unsubstantiated. > > Parallax is hardly accurate beyond about 20 LYs. Here is another unsubstantiated assertion. In fact, Hipparcos achieved good precision out to 100 pc (~300 LY), and some out to 1000 pc. > Apparent brightness and colour can be markedly affected by light's slowing when > escaping the huge gravity of a large star and maybe neutron star. Again, the question is the *amount* of any of these effects. If you are going to claim that they are significant, then the burden is on you to show it. Also, since it's not just a matter of color temperature, but the measurement of well-known spectral lines at well-defined wavelengths, your claims about significant color changes are incorrect. > The assumption that light moves always at c has confused the whole picture. > Have you ever seriously considered the alternative? > I suggest you do..because the overall picture becomes much more clear. Actually, I re-consider the alternatives many times when I respond to crackpots. The problem is that the evidence does not support it. And... you are living in a world where only stellar light curves exist and nothing else. In a nearly information-free environment like that, of course you are free to develop unsubstantiated "theories." I note that you have provided unsubstantiated and incorrect assertions about stars, and how their light might be changed. Without substantiation or correctness, your claims are irrelevant. > >> >> My predicted light curves refer to the energy form one particular star > >> >> impinging on unit area at the receiver. They are expresed in terms of apparent > >> >> brightness. I am presently incorporating a log scale...which doesn't markedly > >> >> affect the curve shapes but DOES change the predicted distances at which things > >> >> happen. > >> > > >> >Whether you plot on a log or linear scale is irrelevant. What is > >> >relevant is that pulsating stars have strong wavelength dependent > >> >features which you could not model with your purely geometric > >> >"theory." For example, when moving to redder wavelengths, a cepheid > >> >can transition from having one peak to two peaks per cycle! > >> > >> The BaT explains that very simply....although usually only one peak should be > >> redshifted. > >> In fact that is even more proof that the BaT is correct. > >> Double peaks are a common prediction. > > > >My comment was not about your ability to "predict" double or single > >peaked light curves. My point was that individual stars are *both* > >single and double peaked, but at different wavelengths. > > Are you saying that for one particular star, its red light might be double > peaked but its blue light only singly peaked? > > i would like to know the details please. I may have been incorrect about that. > >> >> >Finally, it is worth pointing out that variable star light curves can > >> >> >be successfully explained by other effects, *not* your ballastic model > >> >> >(eg. temperature dependent opacity effects). Thus, we are in a > >> >> >situation where we do not need your ballastic model for variable star > >> >> >light curves, and your ballastic model is excluded for other reasons. > >> >> > >> >> Sorry, The BaT survives all known tests and is supported by a mass of > >> >> evidence...from the MMX onwards. > >> > > >> >Sorry, your "theory" does not survive many tests at all. That's why > >> >we don't let a student mark his own test. > >> > >> we shall see. > >> > >> > > >> >> It also predicts almost all simple variable star light curves and is the ONLY > >> >> theory that can reasonably explain the precise constancy of the periods of many > >> >> of these oscillations. > >> > > >> >Whether or not it is successful in matching some light curves is > >> >irrelevant, since there are so many other things that it fails. > >> > >> It fails nowhere. > >> > >> > > >> >> Do you really believe that a supposed 'choo-choo' star like delta Cep could > >> >> maintain a period constant to withing seconds over tweny years if the process > >> >> was NOT directly linked to its orbiot period? > >> > > >> >Regarding the constancy of the period, it is well known that cepheid > >> >periods change. For example the period of SV Vul changes by 214 > >> >sec/yr (!), which would be unphysically large if it were orbital > >> >period change. Your "how could it not be" is another appeal to > >> >intuition. However, again, nature is not obliged to honor your > >> >intuition, so your comment is irrelevant. > >> > >> That kind of steady drift is easily explained by the BaT. > >> The binary pair responsible is itself in slow orbit around a larger mass, such > >> as a galactic centre. > > > >I note your continued lack of substantiation. > > Time limits what I can do. > See my (still evolving) program if you want to learn all about the BaT. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe You could have substantiated your "galactic centre" comment with some hard numbers or estimates, but you did not. While your time constraints are pitiful, they are not really relevant to the "theory's" incorrectness. If you are not interested or able to apply your "theory" to anything but stellar light curves, then why should anyone else be? I certainly have no more interest. Good bye. CM
From: George Dishman on 29 Jun 2005 14:42
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:p5u3c1l8gvpr100f69og9d9gao9nl0q1ek(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 21:45:58 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: > >> >>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >>news:em71c11qaa9e6f0j4eu2gv40hack2ee3l6(a)4ax.com... >>> 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... >>... >>>>> 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. >> >>Yes but momentum is proportional to speed >>while energy is proportional to the square >>hence the energy lost in an interaction >>with a galaxy is negligible. > > Yes. > >>The temperature >>of the gas associated with it is more >>significant, but lay that aside for the >>time being, because: >> >>> 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. >> >>That's a much more sensible suggestion. >>However, it will suffer from the usual >>problem that the energy loss must be >>associated with a momentum change as >>you said, hence it would cause blurring >>of the image of distant objects. > > > Not necessarily. Deflection should even out over any significant distacne. That's an interesting aspect. Each deflection will give the photon a small velocity increment perpendicular to the direction of propagation (say the z axis). However, the increments will be randomly distributed in the x-y plane of and have some spread of magnitude. Think of each deflection looking along the (average) line of propagation and it will look like a random walk. The end result is the (angular) deflection will be proportional to the square root of the number of deflections and proportional to the mean deflection angle per encounter. > I imagine a photon as a long pointed cigar shaped object moving rapidly > through > space. Every time it passes an atom, that atom is drawn very slightly > towards > it. The associated energy can only come from the photon. The photon will > also > be deflected but after passing lots of atoms will end up in the same basic > direction. It will travel in a very slight zig-zag path, losing a little > energy > at every direction change. You can use the line width to set a minimum on the number of deflections. The redshift would depend on the number but for the reason above, spectral broadening would depend on the square root. >>I've >>done the sums for Compton scattering but >>hadn't considered the gravitational >>equivalent so that might be interesting >>to research. Thanks for the idea Henri :-) > > Note, if two photons pass an atom simultaneously and equidistant but on > opposite sides, the atom will not move...imagine two electrons passing a > proton. The electrons are deflected towards each other but the proton does > not > move sideways. > Question, does the proton end up displaced longitudinally? It should not, > but..... > > e- >v > P > e- >v It's actually more complex and probably depends on the speed. I think the answer can be a small velocity change for the proton in either direction but parallel to the direction of motion of the electrons of course, but we are talking of photons, not electrons. Because EM forces are far stronger than gravitational other forms of scattering dominate where interactions with charged particles are concerned. Free neutrons might give gravitational scattering but of course they decay so having thought about your suggestion a bit longer, I don't see how you can construct a viable model out of it. >>[context replaced again:] >>>>>>> I doubt if the majority of scientists now supports the BB concept. >>... >>>>Equally irrelevant, what is your >>>>justification for your claim about the >>>>support of the "majority" of scientists? >>> >>> I read it somewhere. >> >>No Henri, you just made it up. Bullshit >>as usual. > > I read somewhere authoritative that about half the scientific world does > not > agree with the BB theory. > I don't remember where I read everything I read George. I think you'll find it was just a crank site or publication. There's a lot of wishful thinkers out there. It's certainly untrue. >>>>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. >> >>True, the universe isn't there for my gain. >>The measurements tell me that's the way it >>is whether I want to accept it or not. > > the measurments tell us that light loses energy apparently in proportion > to the > distance it travels.....although that is by no means certain. No, the SNe measurements rule that out conclusively though it had been pretty well discounted by more complex evidence long before then. George |