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 on 12 Jul 2005 08:25 Henri Wilson wrote: > 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: <context replaced, Henri wrote> > >>>>>> 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". > > 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. Or for a small FoV the star will not be visible so to centre the star you tilt the telescope. It is just another way to describe the same effect. > Same thing really. Yes, so if you "have no problem with" it, why did you say "This is plainly wrong ..." in the quote up at the top? > The angle WILL be light speed sensitive but only very slightly in any real > situation. There is a very small difference between the theories but that's not the point of the discussion, the effect is present in both. Perhaps the more important point is this: > >>>> .... 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. While the speed differs slightly between BaT and SR, both give the same general conclusion, if you use a long thin telescope, the light will hit the side unless you tilt it at an angle to the direct path from the star to the observer. George
From: george on 12 Jul 2005 08:42 Henri Wilson wrote: > On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 12:29:00 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: .... > >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. Correct. > 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'. You do talk some rubbish at times ;-) > 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"""". Nope, "rate" is defined as ticks per SECOND, not ticks per 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. Yep. > So the OO should count N ticks per orbit NOT N+n. Nope, it should read the same number of ticks per SECOND against the OO's clock when in orbit as it did against the GO's clock when it was on the ground. If you think about it, that's almost tautological. That's boring, the interesting part of all this is why you got it wrong. > Since we can be sure that the reference time duration > (the orbit) ... There is the answer, you are so locked into Newtonian thinking that you assume an orbit has the same duration as measured by both the GO and the OO (ground observer and orbiting observer for any lurkers). Of course if you introduce universal time by that means, you will then get an apparent contradiction. This just illustrates nicely what I said above, you cannot think outside the Newtonian box and have never achieved the fundamental change of understanding of the nature of space and time that relativity provides. George
From: Henri Wilson on 12 Jul 2005 19:00 On 12 Jul 2005 05:25:34 -0700, george(a)briar.demon.co.uk wrote: > > >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:05:43 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >> wrote: >> 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. > >Or for a small FoV the star will not be visible >so to centre the star you tilt the telescope. It >is just another way to describe the same effect. > >> Same thing really. > >Yes, so if you "have no problem with" it, why >did you say "This is plainly wrong ..." in the >quote up at the top? Slight misunderstanding. I had in mind the fact that a diagonal beam passes down the centre of a vertical telescope. > >> The angle WILL be light speed sensitive but only very slightly in any real >> situation. > >There is a very small difference between the >theories but that's not the point of the >discussion, the effect is present in both. >Perhaps the more important point is this: > >> >>>> .... 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. > >While the speed differs slightly between BaT >and SR, both give the same general conclusion, >if you use a long thin telescope, the light >will hit the side unless you tilt it at an >angle to the direct path from the star to the >observer. I thought the aim of the exercise was to detect differences in light speed with aberration angle. I doubt if the sensitivity would be sufficient for that. > >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 12 Jul 2005 19:05 On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 02:36:58 -0400, David Evens <devens(a)technologist.com> wrote: >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: >>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? If you don't know the GR explanation for the GPS clock rate increase then why don't you ask Andersen or Roberts. 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 12 Jul 2005 19:34
On 12 Jul 2005 05:42:51 -0700, george(a)briar.demon.co.uk wrote: > > >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 12:29:00 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >> wrote: >... >> >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. > >Correct. > >> 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'. > >You do talk some rubbish at times ;-) I'm merely repeating the 'GR rubbish'. It IS isn't it!!! > >> 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"""". > >Nope, "rate" is defined as ticks per SECOND, not >ticks per orbit. seconds, hours, orbits....whatever. Let's use a GPS orbit as the time reference George. Give it the value 1 time unit. We know its true duration will not change during the experiment. If you are having difficulty in coming to grips with the idea, George, just ask yourself how our 'year' is used as a standard time unit. >> 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. > >Yep. > >> So the OO should count N ticks per orbit NOT N+n. > >Nope, it should read the same number of ticks per >SECOND against the OO's clock when in orbit as it >did against the GO's clock when it was on the >ground. If you think about it, that's almost >tautological. That's exactly what I said George. The OO should read N ticks, not N+n. The point you miss is that both observers are using the same clock....it ticks at the rate of 'ONE per GPS orbit'. > >That's boring, the interesting part of all this is >why you got it wrong. ...but you just agreed with what I said....you showed that I was right!!!! > >> Since we can be sure that the reference time duration >> (the orbit) ... > >There is the answer, you are so locked into Newtonian >thinking that you assume an orbit has the same duration >as measured by both the GO and the OO (ground observer >and orbiting observer for any lurkers). Of course if >you introduce universal time by that means, you will >then get an apparent contradiction. George, the OO takes TIME to complete one orbit. Do you deny that? The 'measured value' of that TIME, by different observers, is of no consequence. It is ASSIGNED the value of 'unity' by both observers. What IS important is that the duration of that orbit does not change when the clock is launched into it. Its 'absolute value' is not observer dependent. Both observers use that orbit as their common time reference. They can both accurately determine its start and end points. > >This just illustrates nicely what I said above, you >cannot think outside the Newtonian box and have never >achieved the fundamental change of understanding of >the nature of space and time that relativity provides. You are quite wrong George. YOU cannot grasp the notion that the universe functioned perfectly well before human eyes were invented. There exists an 'Absolute Physics' which is NOT observer dependent. Thus, a rod occupies a length of 'space'. An orbit is completed in an 'interval of time'. Measurements are a human concept, devised to try to make some sense out of the mess.. > >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. |