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 1 Jul 2005 19:52 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... >>>> 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. Do you deny that the original observer, in the original frame and using the same time reference, detects a different number of ticks per orbit after launch? > >>>> 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, do you agree that light take time to travel from A to B like anything else? Do you believe that this 'time' depends on whether or not an SRian on little planet Earth happens to be lined up with it? >>> >>>> 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. SR says they do simply because that's what would happen if an aether existed. >>>>>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. To the non-indoctrinated, SR doesn't provide a credible answer to any of these problems. > >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 1 Jul 2005 19:55 On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 21:31:45 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >news:lc81c1hrmtn54q76h6ub2sr3o2reg2c0vr(a)4ax.com... >> On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 20:26:32 +0100, "George Dishman" >> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >> wrote: > >Original context restored: > >{I wrote:] >>>>>>>>>I can only go on what I see. What you wrote >>>>>>>>>displays a complete lack of understanding >>>>>>>>>of basic SR. >[Henri wrote:] >>>>>>>> Here we go! YOU DON"T UNDERSTAND. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Of course I understand SR. > >>>... 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. > >Don't be silly: > >>>>>My ability to answer wouldn't prove _you_ >>>>>understood SR which is the claim you made: > >[Henri wrote:] >>>>>>>> Here we go! YOU DON"T UNDERSTAND. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Of course I understand SR. > >>>> 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. > >I know, but so far you have only proved >that you have never made the attempt and >consequently never have understood it. >Only you can convince me otherwise, but >later you admit what everyone has been >telling you: > >> I don't want to even consider the SR explanation. > >Obviously. That's why your criticisms are >invariably aimed at nonsensical strawmen. > >George > George everything in SR follows directly from the unproven first postulate. Its stupidity is exemplified by the assumption that a vertical light beam in one frame becomes a diagonal beam in another. This is plainly wrong....even in LET....and so is the whole theory. 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 2 Jul 2005 05:55 On 29 Jun 2005 11:40:35 -0500, Craig Markwardt <craigmnet(a)REMOVEcow.physics.wisc.edu> wrote: > >H@..(Henri Wilson) writes: >> On 26 Jun 2005 12:20:07 -0500, Craig Markwardt >> >> >> >> 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. Spacetime is just a 4D presentation of 3D space against time. It's just a 4-tensor. It is no more revealing that 3D. >> > >> >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. I can assure you that many others know it is the correct theory. Why would all starlight in the universe want to travel at precisely c wrt litle planet Earth? S1->______________pp_______________ <-S2 If two differently moving light sources each emit a pulse of light as they are adjacent, what property of space would cause the two to remain together as they traveled through space? Another question: A Light source emits a puls eof light towards Andromeda. S-------------------p->______________________A How is it possible for the pulse to travel at c wrt every differently moving object in Amdromeda? Only LET has an answer to these two questions and we know there is NO aether. > >> 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 clears up most of the mysteries associated with star brightness variation. Unlike the standard explanations, it provides simple and credible reasons. > >> >> 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. Relativity is based on the unproven postulate that light speed is c in all frames.. Being ignorant of the truth of an unproven and meaningless postulate is not something I feel ashamed of. >> >> 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. It would be considered at all because the observations would be accepted as is, based on constant c. Then someone would make up all kinds of outrageous theories to explain what they thought they were observing. >> >> 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. I was under the imporesion that pulsars were single, fast rotating, high density stars that possess an enormous magnetic field. the pulses are a result of the star's own rotation, not its orbiting movement. Pulsar's are not a matter the BaT wants to be associated with. >> >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. It is a very complex topic with many parameters. Understanding the principle is what matters at this stage. What you and others cannot get into your heads is that what you are seeing is NOT necessarily what is happening. You should learn to look beyond the obvious. >> >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. Very approximate. > >> 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. See my program www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/redshift.exe It does all the calculations for you for a wide range of parameters. It calculates the expaected doppler shifts for light from different sized stars and galaxies. >> 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 program has matched many observed light curves, using the Bat. >> > >> >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. According to the BaT, it is most likely that one peak would be redshifted and the other blueshifted. If that is what you were saying then it is even more supporting evidence for the BaT. >> >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. I have provided the means to properly investigate the ballistic theory of light. Anyone else is free to use my program. It can do in seconds more calculations than all the SRians put together could do in their whole lifetimes. > >CM 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 2 Jul 2005 14:32 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:9clbc1l902l73phcqv4e3869hbv8m1es41(a)4ax.com... > 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... >>>>> 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. > > Do you deny that the original observer, in the original frame and using > the > same time reference, detects a different number of ticks per orbit after > launch? You claimed you understand SR and I am challenging you to "put up or shut up" as the saying goes. Prove you understand the theory by telling me the SR/GR explanation for what is observed. So far you have said "SR contractions cannot be REAL physical changes. Lorentz's are." which is valid in the sense you are using the word "physical" so now go on, if the changes are real and they are't "physical", what is the 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, do you agree that light take time to travel from A to B like > anything > else? > Do you believe that this 'time' depends on whether or not an SRian on > little > planet Earth happens to be lined up with it? Still trying to push the strawman Henri? If you understand SR as you claim, why are you asking such questions, you should be able to tell me why someone on Earth and an alien who happens to fly past at 0.9c woud both measure the same speed for the same photon. >>> 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. > > SR says they do simply because that's what would happen if an aether > existed. Wrong again, there is no aether in SR. That's just yet another confirmation that you are not aware of the SR explanation. >>>>>>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. > > To the non-indoctrinated, SR doesn't provide a credible answer to any of > these > problems. Or to put it another way, you admit don't know understand what explanation SR provides. It's not unusual, the vast majority of the population of our planet is ignorant of very existence of relativity, but you shouldn't get upset when people point out that you are one of them, especially when it has clearly been your own choice not to find out the basis of SR. You are in no position to judge whether the answer SR provides is credible or not since you don't even know what that answer is. I usually recommend "Spacetime Physics" by Taylor and Wheeler because the first chapter goes right to the heart of the explanation but I'm sure you wouldn't want to risk inadvertent indoctrination by actually finding out. What really puzzles me is why you have no curiousity as to why tens of thousands of people do consider it perfectly credible, logical and even obvious while you don't even know what it is. George
From: George Dishman on 2 Jul 2005 14:37
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:5rlbc1llr15ddr0rfaknl77mkivj5oc7c7(a)4ax.com... <snip uncommented text> > George everything in SR follows directly from the unproven first > postulate. > Its stupidity is exemplified by the assumption that a vertical light beam > in > one frame becomes a diagonal beam in another. > > This is plainly wrong....even in LET....and so is the whole theory. Sorry Henry, it is the same in Newtonian physics and in BaT, and is directly observed in the form of stellar aberration. Bradley in 1850 if I'm not mistaken. George |