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: msadkins04 on 22 Jul 2005 16:21 Sam Wormley wrote: > The speed of light is so well tested that it has become a *defined* constant > of nature! It's the same for all observers. It can't be observational *and* defined. And if it's definitional, then how could observations contradict it? There are numerous problems with SR, in addition to the quite fundamental problems also inherent in other contemporary scientific theories. One of the largest is the exceptional way in which the principle of "the relativity of simultaneity" is applied. It claims to be universal, yet it isn't applied to the synchronization of clocks, a fundamental measurement preparation upon which all observational data in SR is based. In SR, each valid observational frame is permitted to assume itself at rest and to conclude that its observations are in some bizarre quasi-objective sense correct: each observer, in different frames, can claim that his own observations are genuine, no matter how they appear to be contradicted by those of other frames. Thus, given observers in two frames in relative motion (A and B), each can assert that his own frame is at rest; and combined, these constitute an assertion that both A and B are at rest even though there is relative motion between them. Each is deemed to be "right" even though both being "right" is paradoxical. Yet, with respect to the synchronization of clocks, frame A does not claim that his own observations are correct with respect to frame B. For example, if frame A assumes that frame B is "moving" then he has certain assumptions about the distance light travels between B's clocks during motion by B (hence during motion by those clocks); and these are different from the assumptions that B has about this, since B assumes that B is at rest (hence his clocks are also at rest). Since the distance that light travels is part of the determination of clock-time in SR clock synchronization procedures, it is clear that if the principle of the relativity of simultaneity were correct *and* applied to all procedures, including that of clock synchronization, frame A would have to assume that B was mis-synchronizing his clocks, since A's observations tell him this is so. Of course, A would have to assume this about all other frames that are "moving". (Note that A's observations "tell him this" only within the framework of interpretation adapted by A, in which A is "at rest" and B is "moving".) All the "dilations" of SR stem from the failure to apply the principle of the relativity of simultaneity to ALL processes *including* the synchronization of clocks within a frame. If it IS universally applied there is no longer any mathematical basis for them and they disappear from SR formulae results. Of course, even more fundamentally, the concepts of "at rest" and "at motion", much less the transition between the two, as well as those of "location in space" and "temporal coordinates", are all seen, upon rational scrutiny, to be something other than what they purport to be; and as what they purport to be, they are hopelessly inconsistent, vague, and ill-defined. Mark Adkins msadkins04(a)yahoo.com
From: George Dishman on 22 Jul 2005 16:27 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:casld1p3humorl9r8ufmnjevqr0mtm7a68(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 13:18:47 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: > >>>>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. > > This is good enough, George. <snip> No it isn't, it is based on equations which are only valid if the speed of the photon is fixed at c. >>You again prove me right. If you think >>conventional physics is wrong, you cannot >>adopt its equations. > > I don't wan to . > > I know that light initially moves at c wrt its source. In which case the equations you gave are invalid. >>> 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. > > Consider this, George: > > A laser is pointed at Mars. An optical gate allows a 1ns long pulse of its > light to travel in the direction of Mars. The pulse arrives at Mars after > a certain time interval, say 10 minutes. > > Somehow, a 30 cm long 'package of EM' is traversing the space between the > two planets, during those ten minutes. > > In the absence of an aether, what 'form' might that package have during > its travel? A bunch of particles we call "photons". You can see them using a photo-multiplier and a dim source. > Nothing in the whole of physics provides ANY information about this. You do say the funniest things. >>> 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. > > George, light a fire. Take a garden hose and send a jet of water through > some very thin smoke. Does the jet appear to change in any way because of > the smoke? Good choice. Focus in on a droplet and you see lots of small collisions between it and smoke particles. For the droplet to pass through with negligible deviation, the mass of the smoke particles has to be very much smaller than that of the drop. In our context, that means m * c^2 << h * f which I think is valid. Note the photons don't absorb matter the way the drops absorb the smoke so the matter particles would be bounced away by the high energy photons. We can get direct experimental results in the lab using X-rays and electrons, hence my use of the Klein-Nishina formula which is applicable. >>.....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. > > I think you must have made an error. > Check your logic. A number of people have checked it and so far nobody can find an error. Actually I expected someone to find something as it isn't a widely publicised result but not so far so the challenge is there. >>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, I think your ability to understand experimental physics is sadly > lacking. ROFL! Henri, the reason I got this result is because I did some research and found the experimentally verified equation which is applicable to the situation. If you want to try using some other experimental formula, you are welcome. George
From: George Dishman on 23 Jul 2005 04:52 <msadkins04(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1122063675.947131.196080(a)z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... > Sam Wormley wrote: > >> The speed of light is so well tested that it has become a *defined* >> constant >> of nature! It's the same for all observers. > > It can't be observational *and* defined. And if it's definitional, > then how could observations contradict it? Anisotropy can be measured regardless of any definitions. > There are numerous problems with SR, in addition to the quite > fundamental problems also inherent in other contemporary scientific > theories. > > One of the largest is the exceptional way in which the principle of > "the relativity of simultaneity" is applied. It claims to be > universal, yet it isn't applied to the synchronization of clocks, a > fundamental measurement preparation upon which all observational data > in SR is based. > > In SR, each valid observational frame is permitted to assume itself at > rest and to conclude that its observations are in some bizarre > quasi-objective sense correct: each observer, in different frames, can > claim that his own observations are genuine, no matter how they appear > to be contradicted by those of other frames. Thus, given observers in > two frames in relative motion (A and B), each can assert that his own > frame is at rest; and combined, these constitute an assertion that both > A and B are at rest even though there is relative motion between them. > Each is deemed to be "right" even though both being "right" is > paradoxical. If you measure the speed of a car with a radar gun, you get some value. Jump on a bike and cycle after the car and you get a lower reading. The reading is valid relative to the gun. The same is unavoidable true of all instruments, the readings apply in the frame of the instrument. > Yet, with respect to the synchronization of clocks, frame A does not > claim that his own observations are correct with respect to frame B. > For example, if frame A assumes that frame B is "moving" then he has > certain assumptions about the distance light travels between B's clocks > during motion by B (hence during motion by those clocks); and these are > different from the assumptions that B has about this, since B assumes > that B is at rest (hence his clocks are also at rest). > > Since the distance that light travels is part of the determination of > clock-time in SR clock synchronization procedures, it is clear that if > the principle of the relativity of simultaneity were correct *and* > applied to all procedures, including that of clock synchronization, > frame A would have to assume that B was mis-synchronizing his clocks, Yes, that is what "the relativity of simultaneity" means. Events which are simultaneous in one frame are not simultaneous in any other. > since A's observations tell him this is so. Of course, A would have to > assume this about all other frames that are "moving". Correct. > (Note that A's > observations "tell him this" only within the framework of > interpretation adapted by A, in which A is "at rest" and B is > "moving".) > > All the "dilations" of SR stem from the failure to apply the principle > of the relativity of simultaneity to ALL processes *including* the > synchronization of clocks within a frame. Time dilation is directly measured in the Ives-Stilwell experiment without any use of simultaneity. I suggest you look it up. > If it IS universally applied > there is no longer any mathematical basis for them and they disappear > from SR formulae results. > > Of course, even more fundamentally, the concepts of "at rest" and "at > motion", much less the transition between the two, as well as those of > "location in space" and "temporal coordinates", are all seen, upon > rational scrutiny, to be something other than what they purport to be; > and as what they purport to be, they are hopelessly inconsistent, > vague, and ill-defined. Their meaning remains the same as in Newtonian physics. George
From: Henri Wilson on 23 Jul 2005 17:54 On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 16:52:15 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"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. That's the classical view. > >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. the sagnc effect is due to something entirely different. Photons have built in 'rotation sensors'. > >>>> 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. that's ONE interpretation...but the wrong one. > >> 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. George, the sagnac effect is due to things other than phase difference. The beams ar not parallel when they reunite. >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, whatever you say wont alter the fact that light leaves its source at c. > >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 23 Jul 2005 18:35
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 21:27:34 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >news:casld1p3humorl9r8ufmnjevqr0mtm7a68(a)4ax.com... >> On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 13:18:47 +0100, "George Dishman" >> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >> wrote: >> >>>>>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. >> >> This is good enough, George. > ><snip> > >No it isn't, it is based on equations which >are only valid if the speed of the photon is >fixed at c. > >>>You again prove me right. If you think >>>conventional physics is wrong, you cannot >>>adopt its equations. >> >> I don't wan to . >> >> I know that light initially moves at c wrt its source. > >In which case the equations you gave are invalid. > >>>> 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. >> >> Consider this, George: >> >> A laser is pointed at Mars. An optical gate allows a 1ns long pulse of its >> light to travel in the direction of Mars. The pulse arrives at Mars after >> a certain time interval, say 10 minutes. >> >> Somehow, a 30 cm long 'package of EM' is traversing the space between the >> two planets, during those ten minutes. >> >> In the absence of an aether, what 'form' might that package have during >> its travel? > >A bunch of particles we call "photons". You >can see them using a photo-multiplier and a >dim source. > >> Nothing in the whole of physics provides ANY information about this. > >You do say the funniest things. > >>>> 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. >> >> George, light a fire. Take a garden hose and send a jet of water through >> some very thin smoke. Does the jet appear to change in any way because of >> the smoke? > >Good choice. Focus in on a droplet and you see >lots of small collisions between it and smoke >particles. For the droplet to pass through with >negligible deviation, the mass of the smoke >particles has to be very much smaller than that >of the drop. In our context, that means > > m * c^2 << h * f > >which I think is valid. > >Note the photons don't absorb matter the way the >drops absorb the smoke so the matter particles >would be bounced away by the high energy photons. >We can get direct experimental results in the lab >using X-rays and electrons, hence my use of the >Klein-Nishina formula which is applicable. > >>>.....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. >> >> I think you must have made an error. >> Check your logic. > >A number of people have checked it and so far >nobody can find an error. Actually I expected >someone to find something as it isn't a widely >publicised result but not so far so the >challenge is there. > >>>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, I think your ability to understand experimental physics is sadly >> lacking. > >ROFL! Henri, the reason I got this result is >because I did some research and found the >experimentally verified equation which is >applicable to the situation. > >If you want to try using some other >experimental formula, you are welcome. It uses the wrong photon model. > >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. |