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 13 Jul 2005 04:08 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:p6j8d1tncv3201d0rmfle186rrekjaamr9(a)4ax.com... > On 12 Jul 2005 05:42:51 -0700, george(a)briar.demon.co.uk wrote: .... >>> 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!!! What you said is rubbish, it isn't GR. >>> 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. Let's not, since that imposes a universal measure of time and as we know time isn't universal. Only someone who didn't have a clue what relativity was about would attempt to do that. > 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. It isn't. The second is the standard unit of time and it is defined in a very definite manner for good reason. > The point you miss is that both observers are using the > same clock....it ticks at the rate of 'ONE per GPS orbit'. The point you are missing is the difference between "an orbit" and "the duration of an orbit". Never mind, it just proves yet again that you don't understand what relativity is about. >>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!!!! I'll say it again, the point you are missing is the difference between "an orbit" and "the duration of an orbit". >>> 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. Wrong. That is precisely what the whole of relativity is about and you have never grasped that. > It is ASSIGNED the value of 'unity' by both observers. No it isn't, the second is our defined duration. > 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. Wrong again, it does not change but is observer dependent. > Both observers use that orbit as their common time reference. They can > both > accurately determine its start and end points. They can determine the ends but cannot agree on the number of seconds that will fit between those ends. >>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. Of course it did, it always behave as GR says it does, we just weren't aware of that which is why Newtonian physics ran into problems. > 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'. And that religious conviction is why you cannot grasp the relativistic model. What is absolute (or better, invariant) is spacetime intervals, not space or time separately. Never mind, you are just proving over and over again the very point you tried to deny, that you don't have any understanding of the fundamental difference between relativity and Newtonian space and time. George
From: George Dishman on 13 Jul 2005 04:17 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:6gi8d15e26erriqas1dpp5b0ddka0epevq(a)4ax.com... > 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. OK, fair enough, these things happen. Does that mean your animation is no longer relevant? >>> 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. No, I wasn't trying to prove anything, I was just puzzled by your comment. > I doubt if the sensitivity would be sufficient for that. I believe the difference has been confirmed but I can't give you a reference. It's just a vague memory of something I read somewhere. George
From: Henri Wilson on 13 Jul 2005 19:08 On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 09:17:51 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >news:6gi8d15e26erriqas1dpp5b0ddka0epevq(a)4ax.com... >> On 12 Jul 2005 05:25:34 -0700, george(a)briar.demon.co.uk wrote: >>>> 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. > >OK, fair enough, these things happen. Does that >mean your animation is no longer relevant? Not at all. It is not the same animation. I can see I will have to compile a new one to show you that whatever travels down the centre of the telescope is not a single beam traveling at c. / / |/| | | | | <-v >>>> 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. > >No, I wasn't trying to prove anything, I was >just puzzled by your comment. > >> I doubt if the sensitivity would be sufficient for that. > >I believe the difference has been confirmed >but I can't give you a reference. It's just >a vague memory of something I read somewhere. It is worth analysing. I will write a program. > >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 13 Jul 2005 22:14 On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 23:05:53 GMT, H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote: >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. Henry, we don't need you to AGAIN demonstrate that you didn't read the post you were replying to. >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.
From: George Dishman on 14 Jul 2005 18:39
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:d27bd1ls2eb9is2vp4n3o4r1mt991knd8g(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 09:17:51 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: >>... Does that >>mean your animation is no longer relevant? > > Not at all. > It is not the same animation. > I can see I will have to compile a new one to show you that whatever > travels > down the centre of the telescope is not a single beam traveling at c. Indeed, it is a stream of photons. You only need to consider one as it is typical of all. >>> I thought the aim of the exercise was to detect differences in >>> light speed with aberration angle. >> >>No, I wasn't trying to prove anything, I was >>just puzzled by your comment. >> >>> I doubt if the sensitivity would be sufficient for that. >> >>I believe the difference has been confirmed >>but I can't give you a reference. It's just >>a vague memory of something I read somewhere. > > It is worth analysing. > I will write a program. It might save you some effort to read this first, it has a fairly comprehensive analysis. http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-05/2-05.htm HTH George |