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 11:13 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:l8moc1tu84a073hessak6hsl6qhfb678ig(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 21:32:09 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: > >> >>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >>news:utpgc15h7tprm1nanmm96hcd3vl0i4k6kb(a)4ax.com... >>> On Sun, 3 Jul 2005 08:22:22 +0100, "George Dishman" >>> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >>> wrote: > >>>>The protons would be bounced around by the >>>>photons the same way pollen grains are >>>>bounced around by air molecules. >>> >>> Yes, the pollen grains are scattered ...but the air jet is affected very >>> little. >> >>Every air molecule that hits the pollen grain has >>its velocity significantly changed! That's what we >>are talking about, the avergae deflection in an >>interaction. > > 'Fields' don't become scattered like atoms. They quickly return to their > original shape. Photons scatter, look at X-ray analysis. <snip> >>> I suppose the energy/momentum' law that holds for 'solar sails' apply >>> here. >> >>The photons are deflected by 180 degrees for a solar sail. > > George, if you read my previous posts, you will see that my model is only > relevant in very rare space. I suspect there is a kind of 'threshold > density'. > As density of matter increases, so does conventional reflection, > referaction > and transmission. Then why cite solar sails where the photons are reflected if it is inappropriate? >>Low speed -> high mass -> high deflection angle >>so it doesn't work. Do the maths and see for >>yourself. > > Your model has no relation to mine. It is the same except I have used Klein-Nishina for the cross-section and hence the probability and you haven't said what type of scattering you are using. If you have already posted the equations, give me a link or just repeat them if it's easier. > Mine is like moving a bar magnet past a small chip of wood. No effect then? >>> This raises the question, "can the RMS velocity of all deep space atoms >>> be >>> expressed relative to some kind of universal frame, such as that frame >>> in >>> wihich the mean vector momentum of all matter sums to zero. >> >>The results must be frame independent since they >>are hypothetical, "maths constructs" as you call >>them.' > > The atom speeds must be expressed in terms of hte source frame. > The maths show that the amount of slowing of the light is independent of > atom > speed. Those two statements are contradictory. If the maths is independent of the speed, you can use any inertial frame. >>Show the calculations that lead you to say it or >>it is just a worthless assertion. > > I did. Not in this thread, cite please. >>> Consider a stream of photons passing through a volume of rare gas, in >>> which the >>> atoms are moving randomly. >>> It is fairly easy to imagine the atoms being dragged along slightly by >>> the >>> photons The question is, how much are the photons dispersed/deflected by >>> the >>> sideways movement of the atoms. >>> >>> It cannot violate energy conservation. Any surplus goes into heat. >> >>Each interaction transfers some energy to the >>particles so the overall temperature would be >>raised, but each interaction also changes the >>momentum and those don't cancel. > > The photons are slowed with each interaction (wrt their source). > That is the source of your error. You are assuming constant light speed. Nope, I assume Klein-Nishina gives the distribution of angular deflection. I guess you are going to use something else but you haven't said what. >>The key to all this is the particle mass. > > See the maths I sent to Bjoern. OK, give me a link to the relevant message with the maths then. George
From: Henri Wilson on 10 Jul 2005 20:04 On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 16:13:06 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >news:l8moc1tu84a073hessak6hsl6qhfb678ig(a)4ax.com... >> On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 21:32:09 +0100, "George Dishman" >>>Low speed -> high mass -> high deflection angle >>>so it doesn't work. Do the maths and see for >>>yourself. >> >> Your model has no relation to mine. > >It is the same except I have used Klein-Nishina for >the cross-section and hence the probability and you >haven't said what type of scattering you are using. > >If you have already posted the equations, give me >a link or just repeat them if it's easier. > >> Mine is like moving a bar magnet past a small chip of wood. > >No effect then? How do you know? >> >> The atom speeds must be expressed in terms of hte source frame. >> The maths show that the amount of slowing of the light is independent of >> atom >> speed. > >Those two statements are contradictory. If the >maths is independent of the speed, you can use >any inertial frame. > >>>Show the calculations that lead you to say it or >>>it is just a worthless assertion. >> >> I did. > >Not in this thread, cite please. If the photon loses momentum p, it loses energy pc-p(c-v), where c-v is the final speed wrt the source. But if an atom with mass m gains this momentum p, it has to gain the kinetic energy p^2/(2m). Conservation of energy implies then pv = p^2/(2m). v=p/2m %redshift = v/c = p/2mc = pc/mc^2 = Eo/mc^2 = h/[m.c.lambda] How interesting.....atom speed doesn't appear in the equation..... > >>>> Consider a stream of photons passing through a volume of rare gas, in >>>> which the >>>> atoms are moving randomly. >>>> It is fairly easy to imagine the atoms being dragged along slightly by >>>> the >>>> photons The question is, how much are the photons dispersed/deflected by >>>> the >>>> sideways movement of the atoms. >>>> >>>> It cannot violate energy conservation. Any surplus goes into heat. >>> >>>Each interaction transfers some energy to the >>>particles so the overall temperature would be >>>raised, but each interaction also changes the >>>momentum and those don't cancel. >> >> The photons are slowed with each interaction (wrt their source). >> That is the source of your error. You are assuming constant light speed. > >Nope, I assume Klein-Nishina gives the distribution >of angular deflection. I guess you are going to use >something else but you haven't said what. I doubt if it is covered by any known theory. My idea is new. > >>>The key to all this is the particle mass. >> >> See the maths I sent to Bjoern. > >OK, give me a link to the relevant message >with the maths then. see above > >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 11 Jul 2005 03:00 On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:05:43 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"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: >>>>>> 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". Yes I have no problem with that. We are talking about slightly different effects. My point is that if the telescope is pointed absolutely vertically, the beam of light that runs down the centre will actually be angled slightly away from the vertical. So a star that appears dead vertical will in reality not BE dead vertical. Same thing really. The angle WILL be light speed sensitive but only very slightly in any real situation. > >>>> .... 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. good. I'll try to make as many boxes white on black in future anyway. > >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 11 Jul 2005 03:16 On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 12:29:00 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >news:7nu0d1tr26tqrt1auroiluv6vuv5mleebj(a)4ax.com... >> On Sat, 9 Jul 2005 12:02:25 +0100, "George Dishman" >>>> >>>> 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. Yes we know all about that 'accuracy', George. > >What is "plain and simple" is that you cannot think >outside the Newtonian box and consequently have >never grasped the change that relativity introduces. >You are stuck with a Lorentzian parody of SR and >assume everyone else must share your limitation. George, according to GR, the clock maintains its 'proper rate' after being sent into orbit. An observer accompanying the clock into orbit would observe no change in the clock's rate. GR says the apparent increase wrt the GO is due to the strange notion that 'the duration of a clock second is shorter in less gravity'. Now we know what the proper rate is because that is what the GO measured when the clock was with him on the ground before launch. It is """"N ticks per GPS orbit"""". When the clock joins the OO in orbit, it is the OO who directly reads the clock's 'proper rate'...because the OO is in the same gravity situation. So the OO should count N ticks per orbit NOT N+n. Since we can be sure that the reference time duration (the orbit) has NOT changed, our only sensible conclusion is that the clock's proper rate has changed 'physically'. > >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 12 Jul 2005 02:36
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 01:36:29 GMT, H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote: >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... In what manner is the prediction (of GR) that clocks in orbit are observed to run at different rates than clocks on the surface incompatible with GR? Or are you just making another of your grossly ignorant vomitings? >HW. >www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > >Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. >The most useful thing I have never done is prove Einstein wrong. |