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: Henri Wilson on 14 Jul 2005 20:52 On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 23:39:24 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"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 Bradley 's aberration for draconis was 19 seconds of arc. We would be trying to resolve about 1 in 10^-6 of that, ion order to detect differences due to c+v.. Arago didn't detect any difference because of the earth's atmosphere. the rest is typical Einstein propaganda. the paper admits that the SR and NM analyses differ by only (tan(a) -sin(a) when x is extremely small. In other words there is no more support for SR than for NM. > >HTH >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 14 Jul 2005 21:20 On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 09:08:13 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"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. The 'we' who don't accept that time is universal are the self-deluded SRians. Why can you not get it into your head that the universe doesn't need observers with eyes to function. The idea that a orbit defines an 'absolutely' fixed duration of time is obviously unacceptible to your faith system. > >> 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 'second' was originally defined as a division of the 'fixed' time duration of the Earth's rotation. Since day length varies slightly with the years, a more stable clock has been devised. Like the Earth's period, the clock will not vary whenever an observer goes past. >> 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. The duration of the orbit does not depend on the observer. I am not talking about any measured values. I am going a lot deeper than that. For this experiment, the orbit duration can be taken as a constant time reference for both OO and GO. > >>>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". The orbit has a fixed duration over the whole experiment. The value of that duration is irrelevant. All we need to know is that it has the same value before and after clock launch. > >>>> 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. I don't want to be reminded of what relativity is about. I am telling you why it is wrong. The orbit requires an interval of time for completion. We don't care what that interval is....so long as it remains constant. > >> It is ASSIGNED the value of 'unity' by both observers. > >No it isn't, the second is our defined duration. You just don't get it George. The orbit is the common time unit. it's value doesn't depend on who looks at it. >> 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. How can it be? You know as well as I do that the 'real' properties of objects don't change every time a differently moving observer looks at them. > >> 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. George, look at it this way. Both obserevrs use the same clock to measure the time duration of the orbit. When the clock is on the ground, both observers agree that the orbit takes N ticks. When it is in orbit, both observers agree that it takes N+n ticks. It is pretty bloody obvious that the only thing which has changed is the clock. The orbit certainly hasn't and nor have the observers. If you cannot see that, there is no hope for you. > >>>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. Well please tell me what is wrong with the last statement above.. > >> 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. What the hell is a 'spacetime interval'? Do you think you can win an argument with that kind of nonsense? > >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. I repeat: George, look at it this way. Both observers use the same clock to measure the time duration of the orbit. When the clock is on the ground, both observers agree that the orbit takes N ticks. When it is in orbit, both observers agree that it takes N+n ticks. It is pretty bloody obvious that the only thing which has changed is the clock. The orbit certainly hasn't and nor have the observers. > >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 14 Jul 2005 21:21 On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 22:14:02 -0400, David Evens <devens(a)technologist.com> wrote: >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. Look at it this way. Both obserevrs use the same clock to measure the time duration of the orbit. When the clock is on the ground, both observers agree that the orbit takes N ticks. When it is in orbit, both observers agree that it takes N+n ticks. It is pretty bloody obvious that the only thing which has changed is the clock. The orbit certainly hasn't and nor have the observers. 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: george on 15 Jul 2005 08:04 Henri Wilson wrote: > On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 16:13:06 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: > > >> Mine is like moving a bar magnet past a small chip of wood. > > > >No effect then? > > How do you know? Because in a first approximation (in general conversation, wood in considered to be non- magnetic. Your analogy of "like moving a bar magnet past a small chip of wood" herefore implies no effect. If that isn't what you meant, can you find a better analogy to illustrate what you are trying to convey? > >> 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..... Yes, that rings alarm bells. It's not clear to me why but I suspect it is because you have taken some shortcuts in working only with changes. I think you need to start by showing the basic energy and momentum formulae for a photon of frequency f moving at speed v. The relativistic formulae do not include speed of course so I need to se how you take variable speed into account. It might then cancel out giving the equations above when you take differences but I can't check without the base equations. > >> 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. It will be interesting to see how you turn the equations above into the distribution then, that's the important bit that people seem to miss when discussing this topic. George
From: George Dishman on 15 Jul 2005 12:02
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:4s1ed11ab43h71u364mbrdjcuireq6dafh(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 23:39:24 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: > >> >>"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 > > Bradley 's aberration for draconis was 19 seconds of arc. > We would be trying to resolve about 1 in 10^-6 of that, ion order to > detect > differences due to c+v.. Again let me point out that I only queried your apparent claim that aberration didn't exist at all >>>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >>>news:5rlbc1llr15ddr0rfaknl77mkivj5oc7c7(a)4ax.com... >>>> 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. > Arago didn't detect any difference because of the earth's atmosphere. > > the rest is typical Einstein propaganda. > > the paper admits that the SR and NM analyses differ by only > (tan(a) -sin(a) > when x is extremely small. > > In other words there is no more support for SR than for NM. I never suggested it did. The path of a photon which is "vertical" in the barycentric frame is "diagonal" to the extent of about 19 arc seconds in the Earth frame which you seemed to deny in your earlier posting. I am content to accept it was just a misunderstanding. The historical significance as the page says was for certain types of aether theory as it was hard for them to reconcile with the MMX. George |