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 15 Jul 2005 12:32 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:s92ed1hc1p6jbdp31rvtrprsodti12s70r(a)4ax.com... > 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: .... >>>>> 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. Why can't you get it into your head that a triangle on a flat surface obeys Pythagoras' Theorem whether there is anyone there to measure the lengths of the sides or not, and similar rules apply to space and time whether observers exist or not. > The idea that a orbit defines an 'absolutely' fixed duration of time is > obviously unacceptible to your faith system. It is unacceptable a a disproof of GR because you are simply assuming something which is contrary to it. You can disprove any theory whether it is true or false by assuming a priori that something contrary to the theory is true. <snip> >>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. You mean you are making the assumption that there exists some universal time which is not measurable. That assumption is incompatible with GR hence cannot be used to disprove it. In science "duration" is a measured value, end of story. > For this experiment, the orbit duration can be taken as a constant time > reference for both OO and GO. Again, no it can't, that contradicts the hypothesis you are trying to test, and if you understood SR as you claimed you would know that. >>>>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. And I am pointing out that your argument is fatally flawed precisely because you don't know what relativity is about and are simply assuming something contradictory. > 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. Of course I get it Henri, otherwise I wouldn't be able to tell you what is wrong with it :-) > The orbit is the common time unit. > it's value doesn't depend on who looks at it. It's measured value depends on the location of the clock being used to measure it. The clock is "the observer". >>> 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? That's the test for you to prove you really do understand SR (or GR) as you claimed. I don't think you can do it. > 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. That right, it is exactly what I have been saying for weeks. >>> 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. No they don't the observer _is_ the clock, and there is one in orbit and one on the ground so they cannot possibly be the same clock. > 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. What I can see is that you didn't know it was conventional to describe inanimate measuring instruments in anthropomorhic terms in science. >>>>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.. Scientifically speaking, your acronym "GO" means a clock permanently on the ground throughout the experiment while "OO" means a clock permanently in orbit. The GPS clock is first compared locally against the ground clock, then launched, then compared locally against the orbiting clock. >>> 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'? Henri, how can you possibly ask that after claiming you understand SR?! In terms of explanation, it is the most fundamental concept from which everything else follows. > Do you think you can win an argument with that kind of nonsense? The argument was whether you understood SR or not. You lost that a long time ago but "What the hell is a 'spacetime interval'?" puts the icing on the cake. George
From: Henri Wilson on 15 Jul 2005 18:55 On 15 Jul 2005 05:04:22 -0700, george(a)briar.demon.co.uk wrote: > > >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? I was trying to convey that the effect is extrememly small. Light encountering an atom in space drags that atom along almost infinitesimally......but enough to cause a redshift over vast distances. > >> >> 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. I think the maths is correct. I got it from Bjoern. ...and he thinks he is an expert....I just changed it a little. The atom speed must be equated relative to the light source. One would not expect the force imparted on the atom by the photon to be proportional to the atom speed (relative to the photon), which is c-v. PH-->c------------A->v But the time that force operates is inversely proportional to c-v. So, fair enough. The momentum gain of the atom is independent of atom speed (relative to anything) > >> >> 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. My theory says the angular deflection is negligible. Intergalactic atom speeds are simply not high enough to deflect a photon sideways by an appreciable amount. Remember my model assumes that the photon has a much larger cross section tan the atom and completely engulfs it. The proces is nothing like a collision.. > >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 15 Jul 2005 19:00 On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 17:02:23 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"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. Even though the path of one infintesimal element of the vertical beam follows a diaginal path in a telescope, if you plot the positions of successive such elements, you will find they remain vertically aligned. this is shown in my program www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/movingframe.exe > >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. true. Not surprising when one considers that light speed is source dependent. > >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 15 Jul 2005 19:22 On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 17:32:01 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >news:s92ed1hc1p6jbdp31rvtrprsodti12s70r(a)4ax.com... > >> 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. > >Of course I get it Henri, otherwise I wouldn't >be able to tell you what is wrong with it :-) > >> The orbit is the common time unit. >> it's value doesn't depend on who looks at it. > >It's measured value depends on the location >of the clock being used to measure it. The >clock is "the observer". rubbish. You haven't understood the experiment. > >>>> 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? > >That's the test for you to prove you really do >understand SR (or GR) as you claimed. I don't >think you can do it. > >> 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. > >That right, it is exactly what I have been saying >for weeks. good....remember you said that.... > >>>> 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. > >No they don't the observer _is_ the clock, and there >is one in orbit and one on the ground so they cannot >possibly be the same clock. What the hell are you talking about? > >> 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. > >What I can see is that you didn't know it was >conventional to describe inanimate measuring >instruments in anthropomorhic terms in science. What the hell are you talking about? > >>>>>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.. > >Scientifically speaking, your acronym "GO" means >a clock permanently on the ground throughout the >experiment while "OO" means a clock permanently >in orbit. The GPS clock is first compared locally >against the ground clock, then launched, then >compared locally against the orbiting clock. That is not the experiment I described. THERE IS ONLY ONE CLOCK. Let me repeat: There is ONE clock and there are two observers. One observer, OO, is already in orbit. The other, GO, is on the ground, initially with the clock. Both observers will measure the duration of the OO's orbit using that one clock. They will do it firstly when the clock is on the ground then secondly, when it has joined the OO in orbit. When the clock is on the ground, both observers register N ticks per orbit. After launch, both observers register N+n ticks per orbit. (we know GPS clocks DO speed up) Now, since neither the orbit nor the states of the two observers have changed in any way, the difference in tick counts PER ORBIT can only be attributed to a REAL PHYSICAL change in the clock itself. If you are going to argue that the 'duration of a tick' is different in the orbit than on the ground, you will have to explain why the OO didn't initially count N-n ticks per orbit and finally N ticks. You lose no matter what. >>>> 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'? > >Henri, how can you possibly ask that after claiming >you understand SR?! In terms of explanation, it is >the most fundamental concept from which everything >else follows. Rubbish. It is an interval on a graph. It is not a physical entity. > >> Do you think you can win an argument with that kind of nonsense? > >The argument was whether you understood SR or not. >You lost that a long time ago but "What the hell is >a 'spacetime interval'?" puts the icing on the cake. George, please just explain why my experiment DOES NOT refute GR. > >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: George Dishman on 16 Jul 2005 04:51
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:nqfgd1lna457fb8tmqluso3r8ldu5p0i1e(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 17:02:23 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: .... >>Again let me point out that I only queried your >>apparent claim that aberration didn't exist at all .... >>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. > > Even though the path of one infintesimal element of the vertical beam > follows a > diaginal path in a telescope, if you plot the positions of successive such > elements, you will find they remain vertically aligned. Of course, but again nobody suggested anything other than that. Abberration describes the path of individual photons which becomes angled on a change of frame, even in Ritzian theory. It is also illustrated by the family of 'diagonal' lines in your animation. Actually, in the case of the path of starlight plotted in the Earth frame, it becomes a sine wave with a period of a year ;-) > this is shown in my program www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/movingframe.exe > >> >>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. > > true. > Not surprising when one considers that light speed is source dependent. Sorry Henri, Sagnac refutes that. We have resolved all the queries you raised on that and the result remains that source dependency would produce a null result from Sagnac. George |