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 2 Jul 2005 15:00 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:f6kbc113ie9vgicneijq91ismkh2495lig(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 1 Jul 2005 20:37:34 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: >>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >>news:u2v9c11n8ue1gqurdds45t90v4bea1lpmc(a)4ax.com... >>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 19:42:46 +0100, "George Dishman" >>> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >>> wrote: <trimmed to essentials> >>>>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. >>> >>> The proton should eventually come to rest exactly where it was.. >> >>Nope, no friction in a vacuum, well mostly >>none :-o >> >>In the bigger picture, the proton would have >>occasional interactions with lots of CMBR >>photons. If it was moving in some direction >>(relative to the mean motion of the CMBR >>source), CMBR photons moving the same way >>would be reddened by Doppler while those >>moving the other way would be blueshifted. >>Since blueshifted photons would transfer >>more momentum, gradually the proton's speed >>would be adjusted so that there was no mean >>dipole component to the CMBR anisotropy. >>That is almost like a drag term. > > I don't quite understand your logic here George. there would be protons > moving > in all directions....so why should the CMBR be affected? It's the other way round, the CMBR affects the protons basically by radiation pressure. I'll talk in a frame locally at rest wrt the CMBR. Consider a proton at rest being hit by two CMBR photons of identical frequency from opposite sides at the same moment: ph --> P <-- ph Obviously the effects cancel. Now imagine the proton is moving from left to right. The photon from the right is blue shifted from the point of view of the proton while that from the left is red shifted. red blue ph --> P <-- ph -> The blue shifted photon imparts more momentum to the proton than the red shifted one so the proton gets slowed. Eventually, after enough collisions, it will have been slowed down and its mean speed will be zero. Random collisions and random photon energies will produce a sort of "Brownian Motion" effect but that's all. >>That could take a very long time though! >>I'll leave you to do the sums ;-) .... >>> Whenever a photon goes flying past an atom, the atom is moved a little >>> in >>> the >>> same direction. >>> Remember we are discussing deep space here. There are not many photons >>> OR >>> atoms. >> >>Check if you can conserve both energy and >>momentum (you'll find the answer on many >>web pages). > > George, of course you can. It is the same as any collision....but I will > check > because it might reveal something interesting. In any normal collision, you cannot lose energy without a change of direction which is why I asked. .... >>All this is important for X-ray work and >>you'll find stuff on it on medical sites. >>The key formula is called "Klein-Nishina" >>and you should find my analysis if you >>search for that in the sci.astro group >>early last year. >> >>There is a significant factor which is >>the ratio of the photon energy E = h * nu >>to the particle energy given by m c^2 of >>course. Things are different depending >>on which is larger. Think of playing pool >>but with with one bowling ball and one >>table tennis ball. > > OK .... >>It sounds good in principle but I found >>the problem appears when you do the sums. >>Typically the minimum number of >>interactions for is in the billions >>and the average deflection of the photon >>turns out to be close to 90 degrees. It >>surprised me when I calculated it but >>nobody has been able to show a fault in >>my analysis yet. Of course it means every >>star should light up the whole sky as if >>we were embedded in translucent plastic. > > Your 90 degrees is the problem. My result comes from Klein-Nishina though you should get a similar value from a classical analysis with some provisos. Think of it this way. If you fire a bowling ball at a table tennis ball, the larger ball is barely deflected, which you want, but the small ball is usually fired off at high speed. The result is a large loss of energy which you don't want because it would give spectral line broadening. On the other hand, if you fire the table tennis ball at the bowling ball, the bowling ball will gain very little energy hence the table tennis ball retains almost all the energy, which you want for line broadening, but the smaller ball will ricochet off at almost any angle, average 90 degrees. I found there was no happy medium. I started looking at this because I saw two web sites supporting Tired Light, one saying the particles that photons bounced off had to be very heavy (more than alpha particles IIRC) and the other suggesting that neutrinos were too heavy, maybe it could be gravitons. > I say photon 'cross-sections are large compared to atoms and there is > practically NO sideways deflection. > Remember atoms are mainly 'nothing'. Sure, but remember there must be many collisions and they are not carefully targetted. They must occur with a random distribution of "nearness" compared to the cross section. You need to work with averages. > But the atom can easily be dragged along by the 'photon fields' (for want > of a > better term) "Interaction" is general enough for me. George
From: Henri Wilson on 2 Jul 2005 20:36 On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 19:37:11 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"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. 1726....proven logically incorrect by Airy's later experiment. This is not a correct analogy anyway. The light beam that is diagonal in the telescope was actually diagonal when emitted. See section 3 of my demo, www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/movingframe.exe > >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 2 Jul 2005 20:59 On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 19:32:56 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"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. George, the only SR explanations for anything are circular. Things happen because Einstein said they do. Faith is the only force that could drive anyone into believing any of SR. On the other hand, the concept of a 'local aether frame' is very logical and consistent. Einstein's plagiarized equations might possibly work therein. > >So far you have said "SR contractions cannot be REAL >physical changes. I haven't just SAID it, George. I have PROVED it many times. C>v------------O1>v-----------O2>v1 Accelerate the clock to v1. Does it become REALLY 'physically' faster or slower? >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? Human vision does not define reality George. The universe functioned perfectly well long before humans ever existed. >> >> 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 understand SR perfectly well. The whole thing is an unproven postulate. Unproven postulates don't determine reality. >>>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. There IS an aether in SR ..but is is heavily disguised. >>>> >>>> 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. An unproven postulate is hardly an explanation George. >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. This of course is the SRians last ditch stand when in a tight corner. "you don't understand SR" Now how many times have we heard that? > >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, if you start with any postulate, you can set up a theory that is consistent with that postulate. It may be very impressive and involve very advanced maths. That doesn't justify its existence. For instance take my "equal density theory" This theory is based on the simple postulate that the density of matter in the universe is constant throughout. Space simply curves and varies in scale to make it so. This is a perfectly sound postulate and a very neat theory can follow from it, explaining refractive index amongst other things. Do you understand it, George? > >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 2 Jul 2005 21:21 On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 20:00:00 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >news:f6kbc113ie9vgicneijq91ismkh2495lig(a)4ax.com... >> On Fri, 1 Jul 2005 20:37:34 +0100, "George Dishman" >>>In the bigger picture, the proton would have >>>occasional interactions with lots of CMBR >>>photons. If it was moving in some direction >>>(relative to the mean motion of the CMBR >>>source), CMBR photons moving the same way >>>would be reddened by Doppler while those >>>moving the other way would be blueshifted. >>>Since blueshifted photons would transfer >>>more momentum, gradually the proton's speed >>>would be adjusted so that there was no mean >>>dipole component to the CMBR anisotropy. >>>That is almost like a drag term. >> >> I don't quite understand your logic here George. there would be protons >> moving >> in all directions....so why should the CMBR be affected? > >It's the other way round, the CMBR affects the >protons basically by radiation pressure. I'll >talk in a frame locally at rest wrt the CMBR. > >Consider a proton at rest being hit by two >CMBR photons of identical frequency from >opposite sides at the same moment: > > ph --> P <-- ph > >Obviously the effects cancel. Now imagine the >proton is moving from left to right. The photon >from the right is blue shifted from the point >of view of the proton while that from the left >is red shifted. > > red blue > ph --> P <-- ph > -> > >The blue shifted photon imparts more momentum >to the proton than the red shifted one so the >proton gets slowed. Eventually, after enough >collisions, it will have been slowed down and >its mean speed will be zero. Random collisions >and random photon energies will produce a sort >of "Brownian Motion" effect but that's all. Maybe that's what IS happening, assuming the CMBR frame really exists universally. I believe it is only local. As for the Brownian motion idea, that might apply to the protons but not so much to the photons, which are moving much faster. According to my latest ideas, light is barely (if at all) deflected off course by a sideways moving atom...but the atom gains momentum in the direction of the light beam. >>>Check if you can conserve both energy and >>>momentum (you'll find the answer on many >>>web pages). >> >> George, of course you can. It is the same as any collision....but I will >> check >> because it might reveal something interesting. > >In any normal collision, you cannot lose >energy without a change of direction which >is why I asked. This is now a linear 'drag' rather than a collision. Light doesn't have a central nucleus. It is a 'manifestation of fields' which completely surround the atom. >There is a significant factor which is >the ratio of the photon energy E = h * nu >to the particle energy given by m c^2 of >course. Things are different depending >on which is larger. Think of playing pool >but with with one bowling ball and one >table tennis ball. > >> OK .... >It sounds good in principle but I found >the problem appears when you do the sums. >Typically the minimum number of >interactions for is in the billions >and the average deflection of the photon >turns out to be close to 90 degrees. It >surprised me when I calculated it but >>nobody has been able to show a fault in >my analysis yet. Of course it means every >star should light up the whole sky as if >we were embedded in translucent plastic. >> Your 90 degrees is the problem. > >My result comes from Klein-Nishina though >you should get a similar value from a >classical analysis with some provisos. > >Think of it this way. If you fire a bowling >ball at a table tennis ball, the larger ball >is barely deflected, which you want, but the >small ball is usually fired off at high speed. >The result is a large loss of energy which >you don't want because it would give spectral >line broadening. On the other hand, if you >fire the table tennis ball at the bowling >ball, the bowling ball will gain very little >energy hence the table tennis ball retains >almost all the energy, which you want for >line broadening, but the smaller ball will >ricochet off at almost any angle, average 90 >degrees. I found there was no happy medium. > >I started looking at this because I saw two >web sites supporting Tired Light, one saying >the particles that photons bounced off had to >be very heavy (more than alpha particles IIRC) >and the other suggesting that neutrinos were >too heavy, maybe it could be gravitons. Well my latest suggestion seems to provide an answer. ...but only in very low density vacuum. Space must be so sparesly populated with atoms that each photon is not likely to come into contact with more than one at a time. The atom is dragged along with the light. We know that happens to solar sails. It also fits in with refraction and with specular reflection from some surfaces and not others. ..the density of atoms being the critical factor. >> I say photon 'cross-sections are large compared to atoms and there is >> practically NO sideways deflection. >> Remember atoms are mainly 'nothing'. > >Sure, but remember there must be many >collisions and they are not carefully >targetted. They must occur with a >random distribution of "nearness" >compared to the cross section. You need >to work with averages. Yes but I'm saying the only significant momentum transfer is in the direction of light travel. "Fast moving light moves atoms but slow atoms barely move light". > >> But the atom can easily be dragged along by the 'photon fields' (for want >> of a >> better term) > >"Interaction" is general enough for me. Well we know light possesses momentum and transfers it to matter on 'bulk reflection'. But what happens in almost empty space? > >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: David Evens on 5 Jul 2005 23:14
On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 00:36:55 GMT, H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote: >On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 19:37:11 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >wrote: >>"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. > >1726....proven logically incorrect by Airy's later experiment. Which of those two mutually incompatible claims are you wanting to make? >This is not a correct analogy anyway. The light beam that is diagonal in the >telescope was actually diagonal when emitted. See section 3 of my demo, >www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/movingframe.exe > >> >>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. |