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 16 Jul 2005 19:08 On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 23:24:49 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> 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) > >OK. >Good to see that you accept that clocks behave as predicted by GR. Paul, welcome back. In your absence, I managed to completely annihilate the 'GR Clock correction myth'. When you have sobered up, I will discuus it with you. > >> 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. > >Why is that? >The proper duration of the orbit is N+n ticks. >While on ground the clock will measure the duration to be N ticks, >but this is not proper time. >It proves that time is not absolute. > > >> If you are going to argue that the 'duration of a tick' is different in the >> orbit than on the ground, > >YOU are the one who insists that "the 'duration of a tick' >is different in the orbit than on the ground" because >you claim that "the difference in tick counts PER ORBIT >can only be attributed to a REAL PHYSICAL change in the clock itself." That's correct, paul. The clock has physically changed...nothing else has. > >According to GR, there is no physical change of the clock, >it keeps running at its proper rate. That is my underestanding. > > > > you will have to explain why the OO didn't initially >> count N-n ticks per orbit and finally N ticks. > >Uh? :-) >Your Wonderland fairies at work again? :-) I think you snipped something there Paul. > > >> Henri Wilson wrote: >>>>What the hell is a 'spacetime interval'? > >>George Dishman wrote: >>>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. > >This is kind of right for the time measured by the clock on ground. > >In orbit, the clock measures the proper duration of the orbit, >that is the "length" of the path through space-time the satellite >has travelled during one orbit. You could call that time >"a physical entity" if you like. >On ground, the clock is measuring the space time interval of >a geometric projection of the orbit. A projection has not necessarily >the same length as the projected entity. >In this case, it's shorter. Why talk in riddles when the experiment I described is so plain and simple as is? > >I will not quarrel about whether a projection is "a physical entity" >or not, but I think we can agree that the proper length of a rod >is more "physical" than the length of its shadow. Yes. The proper length is the PHYSICAL length. > >Paul 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 17 Jul 2005 08:18 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:ld2jd1plbe5br0bgv0nkcgd9a8vftm01sl(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 13:09:54 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: >>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >>news:gdegd1p62sv1qtkr0bt444f559kli2ej73(a)4ax.com... >>> On 15 Jul 2005 05:04:22 -0700, george(a)briar.demon.co.uk wrote: .... >>> I was trying to convey that the effect is extrememly small. >> >>You might try aluminium then, it is not thought >>of as magnetic in isolation but could be affected >>by eddy currents as the magnet passes. > > That's exactly the type of process I had in mind. > > When a photon engulfs an atom, it drags that atom ever so slightly. The > atom > gains a little momentum in the directio of photon travel and the photon > loses a > little. > > This would completely explain the cosmic redshift. Only if the distribution of the change of angle is sufficiently small. You haven't derived that yet. >>I would expect Bjoern's maths to be conventional >>hence be based on an invariant speed of c for >>the photon. As such it is relevant to your theory. >>What you need to do is derive the equation or >>something similar from your own theory. > > I did. I simply altered light speed after the interaction event. You cannot just pick up conventional equations and tinker with them, you need to do it the way I outlined: >>In general you have a photon of frequency f_1 moving >>at speed v_p1 interacting with a particle of mass m >>moving at speed v_m1. Afterwards the photon has >>frequency f_2 and speed v_p2 while the particle has >>speed v_m2. >> >>First write down the equations for the energy and >>momentum of a photon in terms of its frequency and >>speed, do the same for the massive particle, then >>solve assuming both total energy and total momentum >>are conserved. Until you do those, you have no starting point. >>> 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) >> >>Unfortunately you need to show the proof. Conventional >>physics doesn't allow for variable speed photons so >>you cannot just pick it up, sorry. > > George, conventional physics is so obviously wrong about light speed that > what > you just said is really quite amusing. You again prove me right. If you think conventional physics is wrong, you cannot adopt its equations. > Can you not see that the whole picture of what is going on with light > becomes > much clearer under the BaT I can see BaT is ruled out by Sagnac and you have no way to answer that. Come up with something new. .....and there is absolutely no evidence that light > retains a speed c relative to its source over long distances. > >>>>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. >> >>Does it? You'll have to show me how you derived >>that by solving the equations above. > > George, don't regard the photon/atom interaction as a collision. > > The atom gains momentum almost entirely in the direction of photon travel. > Therefore the photon loses momentum almost entirely in that same > direction. Don't waste my time with assertions, you have to show how you derive that result. I've shown that the mean deflection angle is 90 degrees, you haven't shown me anything at all. >>> Intergalactic atom speeds are simply not high enough to deflect a photon >>> sideways by an appreciable amount. >> >>You don't understand, it is the photon that >>accelerates the particle. A low mass particle >>usually gets accelerated to high speeds by an >>energetic photon. > > My theory says No it doesn't. Your theory says nothing whatsoever on the matter because you haven't shown how you derive it. > that the cross section of a photon is roughly inversely > proportional to its energy. > > Hence gamma particles are tiny but possess enormous 'internal energy'. > When they interact with an atom, I agree, the result is more like that of > a > standard collision. > ..but for long wavelength EM, the cross section is much greater than > atomic > radii..hence the small drag... > > You have to admit this appears to be a plausible theory. ROFL! Sorry Henri, it isn't even a theory until you publish the derivations. It is baseless speculation, nothing more. >>> 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.. >> >>Compare the situation a million miles before to a >>million miles after and it looks like a collision. >>We aren't worried about the details, just the >>changes in energy and momentum and most importantly >>a graph of probability versus deflection angle. >>It's that final graph which is the key, and probably >>the hardest part to work out, but without it you >>cannot work out the overall blurring of a point >>source which was our original test. > > Well, as pointed out before, the result would be that the photon follows a > kind > of random walk path That's true for multiple interactions but I meant compare before and after a single interaction. On those scales it will look like a collision regardless of the details. ......but the final deviation at any distance is apparently > smaller than the resolving power of any telescope. I expected to find a maximum mass for the particle when I did the calculation, the result was billions of interactions each causing a deflection of the photon with a mean angle of 90 degrees. Trust me, when you do your sums properly, the result will be surprising so just guessing what might happen is a meaningless exercise. Personally, I don't think you are capable of producing a theory from this speculation because you need to know the details of the interaction but I'll be happy if you can surprise me. George
From: George Dishman on 17 Jul 2005 09:00 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:2d3jd1dhsv9tht2tn70u4nubj606vq0g47(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 09:51:31 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: >>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >>>>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. > > I am happy to accept that the sagnac effect is based on > an entirely different principle than the nonrotating case. In that case you are agreeing that the principle you call BaT does not apply hence it is refuted as a general model for light. > Either a local absolute 'non-rotating' frame exists ... which means the light moves at c in that frame which contradicts BaT. > or photons carry little 'internal gyros'. They have "spin" but that is known and dealt with. The system is sensitive only to anisotropy in the time of flight. There should be no anisotropy if the speed is source-speed dependent. George
From: Paul B. Andersen on 17 Jul 2005 15:17 Henri Wilson wrote: > > Paul, welcome back. In your absence, I managed to completely annihilate the 'GR > Clock correction myth'. Again? :-) Paul
From: kenseto on 17 Jul 2005 16:29
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote in message news:dbbu11$cak$1(a)dolly.uninett.no... > Henri Wilson wrote: > > THERE IS ONLY ONE CLOCK. > > > If you are going to argue that the 'duration of a tick' is different in the > > orbit than on the ground, > > YOU are the one who insists that "the 'duration of a tick' > is different in the orbit than on the ground" because > you claim that "the difference in tick counts PER ORBIT > can only be attributed to a REAL PHYSICAL change in the clock itself." > > According to GR, there is no physical change of the clock, > it keeps running at its proper rate. This statement is meaningless. All you are saying is that the proper rate of a clock is according to definition (one second per second) in all frames. The problem is that each clock has its own proper rate but this proper rate does not correspond to the proper rate of another clock moving wrt it. IOW, the passage of a clock second in one frame does not correspond to the passage of a clock second in another frame. Ken Seto > > > > you will have to explain why the OO didn't initially > > count N-n ticks per orbit and finally N ticks. > > Uh? :-) > Your Wonderland fairies at work again? :-) > > >> Henri Wilson wrote: > >>>What the hell is a 'spacetime interval'? > > >George Dishman wrote: > >>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. > > This is kind of right for the time measured by the clock on ground. > > In orbit, the clock measures the proper duration of the orbit, > that is the "length" of the path through space-time the satellite > has travelled during one orbit. You could call that time > "a physical entity" if you like. > On ground, the clock is measuring the space time interval of > a geometric projection of the orbit. A projection has not necessarily > the same length as the projected entity. > In this case, it's shorter. > > I will not quarrel about whether a projection is "a physical entity" > or not, but I think we can agree that the proper length of a rod > is more "physical" than the length of its shadow. > > Paul |