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 10 Jul 2005 08:05 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:r6noc1d4f240mgv9d22oln8231u6kfu9m9(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 20:28:18 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: >>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >>news:6gcec118mjkih6491c8s5hgv5lhokfnque(a)4ax.com... >>> 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. .... > Aberration is not the same as what happens to the beam in a light clock or > MMX. > In the former, the beam that runs down the centre of the telescope was > angled > originally. > If the telescope is pointed exactly perpendicularly, a star whose image > appears > at the focal centre will in reality be displaced slightly sideways because > the > star emits a sphericallly. > > Draw the bloody thing. http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Henri/aberration.png Consider the Sun, S, and two stars A and B which are at exactly 90 degrees as viewed from the Solar System and in the plane of the Earth's orbit. The path of the light from B to us is shown in cyan. When the Earth is at E' and moving from right to left, the telescope has to be angled as shown by the short white line so the measured angle A-S-B is less than 90 and star B appears to be displaced to B'. When Earth is at E" the angle is greater than 90 and the star is displaced to B". >>> .... The light beam that is diagonal in the >>> telescope was actually diagonal when emitted. Light emitted from B at the aberrated angles is shown by the red lines and misses the Solar System entirely, passing by at M' and M" respectively. > That colour problem occurs with some computers. I don't know why. > I'll have to change it to black and white. My mistake, it is white on closer inspection and only looked grey due to the narrowness. George
From: Happy Dog on 10 Jul 2005 08:08 "sue jahn" <susysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote > Henri has discovered "fools gold" with the revelation that > "in flight" red/blue shift is not a valid interpretation of > experiments like Pound-Rebka or Vessot. > http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9907017 > Altho' even Einstein tho't it crucial to the validity of his > field equations, most students of the theory today are in agreement > that the "falling photon" represents the good professor > having a bad hair day. ( did he have any good hair days?) > http://www.tomassonhistory.com/Backgrounds/Einstein.jpg :o) > Both Newton mechanics and Einstein's field equations > predict that oscillating masses should slow as a ponderous > body robs their energy. If there is more than that involved, > It may show up in work like: > http://www.phys.psu.edu/~kgibble/space_clock.html > > Till then, Henri will keep us on our toes. :o) ] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity moo
From: sue jahn on 10 Jul 2005 08:33 "Happy Dog" <happydog(a)sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:bd8Ae.39$6e3.12188(a)news20.bellglobal.com... > "sue jahn" <susysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote > > Henri has discovered "fools gold" with the revelation that > > "in flight" red/blue shift is not a valid interpretation of > > experiments like Pound-Rebka or Vessot. > > http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9907017 > > Altho' even Einstein tho't it crucial to the validity of his > > field equations, most students of the theory today are in agreement > > that the "falling photon" represents the good professor > > having a bad hair day. ( did he have any good hair days?) > > http://www.tomassonhistory.com/Backgrounds/Einstein.jpg :o) > > Both Newton mechanics and Einstein's field equations > > predict that oscillating masses should slow as a ponderous > > body robs their energy. If there is more than that involved, > > It may show up in work like: > > http://www.phys.psu.edu/~kgibble/space_clock.html > > > > Till then, Henri will keep us on our toes. :o) > ] > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=wmd+justification&btnG=Google+Search moo yerself :o) > > moo > >
From: George Dishman on 10 Jul 2005 11:01 "sue jahn" <susysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:42d10c2a$0$18643$14726298(a)news.sunsite.dk... > > "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message > news:dar0g3$1as$1(a)news.freedom2surf.net... >> >> "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >> news:7nu0d1tr26tqrt1auroiluv6vuv5mleebj(a)4ax.com... >> > On Sat, 9 Jul 2005 12:02:25 +0100, "George Dishman" >> > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >> > wrote: >> > >> >> >> >>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >> >>news:lonoc11hf2jak80a4ivpkr0ntlv41e8oug(a)4ax.com... >> >>> On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 20:58:55 +0100, "George Dishman" >> >>> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >> >>> wrote: >> >>>>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >> >>>>news:7qcec1dsnmi8odt4jvk55ph91efg8nmclp(a)4ax.com... >> >>... >> >>>>> 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? >> >>>> >> >>>>So prove me wrong. So far you have given a >> >>>>wrong answer in every post for about the >> >>>>last three weeks. >> >>> >> >>> Well, George, I have just proved GR wrong. >> >>> Read my thread "GPS GR correrction myth" >> >>> >> >>> let me know if you can find a way out of that one :) >> >> >> >>You tell me Henri, you're the one objecting >> >>to being told you don't understand the theory. >> >>If you can't resolve the problem yourself, >> >>we have to infer you don't understand the >> >>theory well enough. >> >> >> >>In fact I pointed out the reason for your >> >>error last time you posted it. It really >> >>is incredibly obvious but if you are stuck >> >>with a Newtonian mindset and are incapable >> >>of working with SR/GR then you won't see it. >> >> >> >>The ball remains in your court. >> > >> > George, when the clock is launched, both obserevrs agree that its rate >> > has >> > increased by the same amount. GR is incompatible with that >> > finding....plain and >> > simple... >> >> Not only is it compatible, GR accurately predicted >> the amount of the effect and the first satellites >> had the compensation built in before launch as a >> result. > > Henri has discovered "fools gold" with the revelation that > "in flight" red/blue shift is not a valid interpretation of > experiments like Pound-Rebka or Vessot. I don't think he has actually got that far yet. > http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9907017 "In the static gravitational potential the picture simplifies because there is a distinguished time ý the one on which metric is independent. This time can be chosen as a universal (world) one." I don't know GR well enough but a statement like that rings alarm bells. I don't have the time to read the paper thoroughly but I note that on page 3 they say: "Actually, most modern textbooks and monographs [14] derive the redshift by using sophisticated general relativity calculations, ... <"well, duh" as certain countries say> ... e.g. using orthonormal bases (a sequence of proper reference frames) to define photon energy and parallel transporting the photonýs 4-momentum along its world-line." however, while that is the strictest approach, it is not even mentioned in their conclusion. <snip> > Both Newton mechanics and Einstein's field equations > predict that oscillating masses should slow as a ponderous > body robs their energy. I think you are falling into the same trap or am I misreading you? > Till then, Henri will keep us on our toes. :o) My dance teacher has a better chance of that than Henri ;-) George
From: sue jahn on 10 Jul 2005 10:38
"George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:darcv4$5q0$1(a)news.freedom2surf.net... > > "sue jahn" <susysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message > news:42d10c2a$0$18643$14726298(a)news.sunsite.dk... > > > > "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message > > news:dar0g3$1as$1(a)news.freedom2surf.net... > >> > >> "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message > >> news:7nu0d1tr26tqrt1auroiluv6vuv5mleebj(a)4ax.com... > >> > On Sat, 9 Jul 2005 12:02:25 +0100, "George Dishman" > >> > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> >> > >> >>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message > >> >>news:lonoc11hf2jak80a4ivpkr0ntlv41e8oug(a)4ax.com... > >> >>> On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 20:58:55 +0100, "George Dishman" > >> >>> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > >> >>> wrote: > >> >>>>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message > >> >>>>news:7qcec1dsnmi8odt4jvk55ph91efg8nmclp(a)4ax.com... > >> >>... > >> >>>>> 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? > >> >>>> > >> >>>>So prove me wrong. So far you have given a > >> >>>>wrong answer in every post for about the > >> >>>>last three weeks. > >> >>> > >> >>> Well, George, I have just proved GR wrong. > >> >>> Read my thread "GPS GR correrction myth" > >> >>> > >> >>> let me know if you can find a way out of that one :) > >> >> > >> >>You tell me Henri, you're the one objecting > >> >>to being told you don't understand the theory. > >> >>If you can't resolve the problem yourself, > >> >>we have to infer you don't understand the > >> >>theory well enough. > >> >> > >> >>In fact I pointed out the reason for your > >> >>error last time you posted it. It really > >> >>is incredibly obvious but if you are stuck > >> >>with a Newtonian mindset and are incapable > >> >>of working with SR/GR then you won't see it. > >> >> > >> >>The ball remains in your court. > >> > > >> > George, when the clock is launched, both obserevrs agree that its rate > >> > has > >> > increased by the same amount. GR is incompatible with that > >> > finding....plain and > >> > simple... > >> > >> Not only is it compatible, GR accurately predicted > >> the amount of the effect and the first satellites > >> had the compensation built in before launch as a > >> result. > > > > Henri has discovered "fools gold" with the revelation that > > "in flight" red/blue shift is not a valid interpretation of > > experiments like Pound-Rebka or Vessot. > > I don't think he has actually got that far yet. > > > http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9907017 > > "In the static gravitational potential > the picture simplifies because there > is a distinguished time - the one on > which metric is independent. This > time can be chosen as a universal > (world) one." > > I don't know GR well enough but a statement like > that rings alarm bells. I don't have the time to > read the paper thoroughly but I note that on > page 3 they say: > > "Actually, most modern textbooks and > monographs [14] derive the redshift > by using sophisticated general > relativity calculations, ... > > <"well, duh" as certain countries say> > > ... e.g. using orthonormal bases (a > sequence of proper reference frames) > to define photon energy and parallel > transporting the photon's 4-momentum > along its world-line." > > however, while that is the strictest approach, > it is not even mentioned in their conclusion. > > <snip> > > Both Newton mechanics and Einstein's field equations > > predict that oscillating masses should slow as a ponderous > > body robs their energy. > > I think you are falling into the same trap or > am I misreading you? Sometimes I say 2 + 2 + 2 = 6 Sometime I say 2 x 3 = 6 I consider them the same. The "trap" where I most often find myself is 2 + 2 + 2 = 8 But thin my spillin is much bitter than my math. ;-) Sue... > > > Till then, Henri will keep us on our toes. :o) > > My dance teacher has a better chance of that > than Henri ;-) > > George > > |