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 20 Jul 2005 18:10 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:b7qld119oi50o2io2aarhe1me39rlct7jj(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 14:00:12 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: > >> >>"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. > > No I am not George. > I say the sagnac effect would occur even if light traveled at c/2 > It is not related to light speed. The actual speed doesn't matter as much. If the speed was c/2 in each direction, the output signal would be doubled but if it is c/2 + v versus c/2 - v then again you get no output. Sagnac doesn't measure c very well but it is extrely sensitive to anisotropy in the two speeds. >>> Either a local absolute 'non-rotating' frame exists >> >>.. which means the light moves at c in that frame >>which contradicts BaT. > > No it doesn't. > I said an "absolute 'non-rotating' frame" > > Rotation is not 'translation'. Whatever. The bottom line is that the Sagnac setup is sensitive to speed difference. SR says the speed will be c for both beams while Ritz says it will be c+v or c-v. We can generalise that to say the speed is c+kv in one direction and c-kv in the other with SR having k=0 and Ritz having k=1. Sagnac then measures k very accurately but gives only a rough measure of c. The bottom line is that the value of k is measured to be zero to with the experimental accuracy. You are welcome to suggest whatever kind of aether ("absolute frame") theory you like as an alternative to Ritz or SR, but my point it that the possibility of k=1 is ruled out. >>> 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. > > You can believe taht george. Belief cannot come into it, BaT must predict the result of the experiment. My analysis of gives me a null prediction. Of course I could be wrong in doing the sums but I have laid out my reasoning and you haven't found anything wrong in the way I have applied BaT. By all means point out the error if you think there is one, or better provide your own working for a BaT prediction of the Sagnac result. > I will prefer to not worry about it at this stage. > I am only interested in what light does in empty space, after it leaves > its > source at c. > > Do you deny that it leaves its source at c, relative to the source? I am saying that k=1 in the above equations is ruled out by the Sagnac Effect, hence the speed of the light is known to be independent of the speed of the source in that experimental setup. That is what I am saying is denied, not by me but by the experimental result. George
From: Henri Wilson on 20 Jul 2005 18:30 On 20 Jul 2005 09:39:47 -0700, kenseto(a)erinet.com wrote: >>>> Ken, there is an observer in the proposed orbit and another on the ground. > > >>>So what?....You are an idiot. The SRians define time is what the clock >>>measures. That's why they can say that the proper rate of passage of >>>time for a clock doesn't change. That's why they attribute the >>>different elapsed time for the twin is due to the different spacetime >>>paths....not different rates of the clocks. > > > >>In that case, the OO should count N-n ticks/orbit before launch. > >The OO does count N+n ticks before launch. Why? They redefine the GPS >clock second to have N+n tick while it is still on the ground. >Your problem is that you don't understand the meaning of the phrase >"Proper Rate". It does not mean the same rate when compared to other >clocks. Ken, can't you even read properly? I said N-n. Not N+n > >Ken Seto 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 21 Jul 2005 19:18 On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 23:10:46 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >news:b7qld119oi50o2io2aarhe1me39rlct7jj(a)4ax.com... >> On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 14:00:12 +0100, "George Dishman" >> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >> wrote: >> > >Whatever. The bottom line is that the Sagnac >setup is sensitive to speed difference. SR >says the speed will be c for both beams while >Ritz says it will be c+v or c-v. We can >generalise that to say the speed is c+kv in >one direction and c-kv in the other with SR >having k=0 and Ritz having k=1. Sagnac then >measures k very accurately but gives only a >rough measure of c. > >The bottom line is that the value of k is >measured to be zero to with the experimental >accuracy. > >You are welcome to suggest whatever kind of >aether ("absolute frame") theory you like >as an alternative to Ritz or SR, but my point >it that the possibility of k=1 is ruled out. George, I am not interested in discucssing the sagna c any more. You are wrong. You have not tal\ken into account the true speed and ANGLE of the light beams leaving the source. With a four mirror system, The beams are displaced and arrive at different angles. That is what causes the fringe shift. Now, I am interested only in what happens to light in free space. It leaves its source at c wrt that source. I want to know what happens to it after that. Analysing the sagnac effect is not going to help. > >>>> 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. >> >> You can believe taht george. > >Belief cannot come into it, BaT must predict >the result of the experiment. My analysis of >gives me a null prediction. Of course I could >be wrong in doing the sums but I have laid out >my reasoning and you haven't found anything >wrong in the way I have applied BaT. By all >means point out the error if you think there >is one, or better provide your own working for >a BaT prediction of the Sagnac result. George, I don't have time. I think something entirely different from 'path length' causes the fringe shift. > >> I will prefer to not worry about it at this stage. >> I am only interested in what light does in empty space, after it leaves >> its >> source at c. >> >> Do you deny that it leaves its source at c, relative to the source? > >I am saying that k=1 in the above equations >is ruled out by the Sagnac Effect, hence the >speed of the light is known to be independent >of the speed of the source in that experimental >setup. That is what I am saying is denied, not >by me but by the experimental result. George, I want DIRECT evidence, not something based on vague interpretations of complex experiments. > >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: "Androcles" <Androcles@ on 21 Jul 2005 20:28 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:2db0e11nvtbuua7f7da94cuclb2q0sr1a4(a)4ax.com... | On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 23:31:52 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> | wrote: | Well please educate me as to what GR says about GPS clock 'ticks'. I'll give it a try from a different perspective. SR is a subset of GR, agreed? SR is based not on two postulates, but three. The third, which Einstein doesn't want to call a postulate, and where time comes into the picture, is the definition given in section I of "Electrodynamics", ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ "We have so far defined only an ``A time'' and a ``B time.'' We have not defined a common ``time'' for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definition that the ``time'' required by light to travel from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A. " Now place your orbitting clock at B and your ground clock at A. Send a signal from A and start the clock. When it arrives at B, start B's clock and return the signal to A. Stop the clock at A with a count of N ticks and sent the signal once again to B, stopping the clock at B upon arrival with a count of M ticks. Prove N =/= M. In the case of an orbitting clock, it would not be at B but at C when the count M was reached, so we have to repeat bounces, accumulating ticks until the clock completes an orbit and returns to B again. Show why N =/= M after multiple complete orbits. Androcles.
From: George Dishman on 22 Jul 2005 11:52
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:vra0e1l2dnmc55eu4h5185co82auufal1l(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 23:10:46 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: <snip attributions> >>Whatever. The bottom line is that the Sagnac >>setup is sensitive to speed difference. SR >>says the speed will be c for both beams while >>Ritz says it will be c+v or c-v. We can >>generalise that to say the speed is c+kv in >>one direction and c-kv in the other with SR >>having k=0 and Ritz having k=1. Sagnac then >>measures k very accurately but gives only a >>rough measure of c. >> >>The bottom line is that the value of k is >>measured to be zero to with the experimental >>accuracy. >> >>You are welcome to suggest whatever kind of >>aether ("absolute frame") theory you like >>as an alternative to Ritz or SR, but my point >>it that the possibility of k=1 is ruled out. > > George, I am not interested in discucssing the sagnac any more. You are > wrong. > You have not tal\ken into account the true speed and ANGLE of the light > beams > leaving the source. > With a four mirror system, The beams are displaced and arrive at different > angles. Henri, just recently, you said you had been surprised when your own simulation showed that in fact that the beams rotate the same way. > That is what causes the fringe shift. We have been over this repeatedly, it has been known that the intensity at any point in an interference pattern depends only on the relative phase for over a century. Why that is so doesn't concern us, we are using it only as an instrument. Phase difference is the sine of the ratio of the time difference to the period (over 2 pi) so the sensor DIRECTLY measures the difference in the time of arrival of the light over the two paths. >>> Do you deny that it leaves its source at c, relative to the source? >> >>I am saying that k=1 in the above equations >>is ruled out by the Sagnac Effect, hence the >>speed of the light is known to be independent >>of the speed of the source in that experimental >>setup. That is what I am saying is denied, not >>by me but by the experimental result. > > George, I want DIRECT evidence, not something based on vague > interpretations of > complex experiments. The experiment is one of the simplest imaginable, just a source, some mirrors and a sensor. You get a direct measure of the time difference and you know the length of the paths and since speed is distance over time, you cannot get a much more direct measure of the anisotropy in the speed. > Now, I am interested only in what happens to light in free space. It > leaves > its source at c wrt that source. I want to know what happens to it after > that. > Analysing the sagnac effect is not going to help. Analysing the Sagnac effect would tell you that your assumption of dependence on the speed of the source was wrong, but I agree that wouldn't help you. The light is emitted in the photosphere where there is significant plasma density so your previous comments on extinction would mean it would be c relative to the stellar wind. When it reaches the star's equivalent of the heliopause, the speed would become c relative to the ISM. You should probably study Fresnel's experiments on light in a flowing medium. To do your simulation properly, you need to model the effects of the stellar atmosphere and the ISM which makes it far more complex than Sagnac. George |