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 23 Jul 2005 23:22 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:pgh5e1tas70fjeeai48ad0ql5nkk64ab0r(a)4ax.com... > 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... .... >>> 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. Which part of "experimentally verified" did you fail to understand? George
From: George Dishman on 23 Jul 2005 23:41 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:tse5e1101mdbngkmc7th2s35mf4koo1ijj(a)4ax.com... > 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. The QM view says the probablility of a photon arriving at a point is proportional to the classical relative intensity. The sensor used (a photodiode) responds to the intensity or the mean rate of photons giving the same result whichever theory you use. >>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'. Photodiodes don't. They respond to the intensity and that includes the modulation applied to the overall beam in an iFOG. The modulation carried by the beams is subject to the same time delay as the carrier. >>>>> 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. It is a direct measurement of time delay with no interpretation involved. You get the same delay in sending time coded signals between communications satellites. >>> 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 sensor responds to intensity, and intensity in an interferometer varies as the sin of the relative phase difference. Your suggestion of hypothetical alternative models for photons have no effect on that _empirical_ observation. > The beams ar not parallel when they reunite. They are at the same angle as when the table was not rotating, and the angle is known to have no effect on the output of the sensor. You said you had experience of interferometers and agreed you had noted that. > George, whatever you say wont alter the fact that light leaves its source > at c. Henri, whatever either of us says will not change the fact that the Sagnac experiment falsifies your Ritzian ballistic light model. That's why science is objective. George
From: George Dishman on 24 Jul 2005 02:34 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:2bf5e1tqjdklpcobmvcrck9mkv0nqj1c16(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 17:39:29 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: > >> >>"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: >><snip> >>>>>>Right, but they still don't agree on the >>>>>>duration of the orbit so they don't agree >>>>>>on the clock rate which what GR and SR say >>>>>>stays the same. >>>>> >>>>> George, the orbit has ONE value for its duration. >>>> >>>>No it doesn't and that is the key. Newton assumed >>>>what you say, that the duration between two events >>>>must have a single absolute (or invariant) value. >>>>In SR it doesn't and that is the fundamental >>>>difference between the theories. >>> >>> ...but my experiment negates that argument. The two observers are in the >>> two >>> different frames. >> >>Let me correct that again, there is only one >>clock and in scientific terms it is the clock >>that is "the observer". >> >>> If what you say is correct then the OO would count N-n ticks/orbit when >>> the >>> clock was on the ground. >> >>(I'll consider just the GR part). >> >>The clock generates N ticks per orbit when it >>is on the ground. The GO says that is N ticks >>in T seconds giving a rate of R = N/T. The OO >>also sees the clock generate N ticks per orbit >>of course but in a time of T+t seconds. > > You have already lost the plot, George. > The are no 'seconds' in this experiment. You keep talking about "time" and "duration" and those are measured in seconds (or multiples thereof) in physics. >>When the ground is moved up to the OO, it now >>generates N+n ticks per orbit so both agree >>the number has increased, but that is a rate >>of R' = (N+n)/(T+t) ticks, and it turns out >>that R' = R. The clock is producing the same >>mnumber of ticks per second in orbit as it did >>on the ground so there has been no "physical" >>change as you would call it. > > George, there are no 'seconds'. There is a time duration defined by the > orbit Sorry Henry, you asked me to tell you why your so-called proof was invalid and that is the reason. The duration of the orbit is not the same for the GO and OO so you cannot use it as a definition of a fundamental unit. > and there is a clock that 'ticks'. > There are two observers with counters. > >> >>What you have is a difference in the durations >>of the orbit according to the GO and the OO, but >>neither of them thinks that duration has changed >>as a result of moving the clock. > > The orbit has a fixed 'absolute' duration, No, it has a fixed duration which is not absolute, the observers do not agree the value. > which is not affected by what > observers do. The orbit duration does not change during the experiment. > >> >>> He cannot. >> >>I agree, solely because you said he didn't have >>his own clock! >> >>Let me again state what we both know. The orbit >>would have one duration when measured by a clock >>on the ground (the "ground observer") and a >>different value when measured by a clock orbiting >>with the satellite (the "orbiting observer"). > > George, does the Earth's daylength vary just because different observers > measure it differently. You just said it yourself, "different observers measure it differently." > 1 DAY is 1 DAY whether an observer measures it as having 23 hours or 25 > hours. That's why the old definition of a period of light followed by a period of darkness just isn't good enough for physics. > It is ONE DAY. > Similarly ONE ORBIT IS 'ONE ORBIT'. > >> >>If you assume "the orbit has ONE value for its >>duration" then you are assuming something >>contradictory to SR/GR. Your gedanken is not >>a proof of anything, it is entirely circular >>because it starts by assuming its conclusion. > > George, of course I am assuming something different from SR. Then your so-called proof only shows that "something different" to be incorrect, not SR or GR. We call that a strawman. > I'm hardly likely to assume SR corect when I am proving it wrong. You need to learn some basic logic Henri. >>>>My point is that making that assumption is >>>>contrary to SR hence any gedanken you view >>>>that way will always produce contradictions >>>>with SR. You aren't proving SR wrong, you >>>>are only proving it is incompatible with >>>>invariant durations, which is something that >>>>we know already. >> >><snip repetition of above> >> >>> If you think something else has changed because the clock has joined the >>> OO, >>> please tell me about it. >> >>The angle between the time axes of the clock >>and the observers. I thought you claimed you >>already understood relativity. > > True relativity yes. There is only one. We'll see what you say later. >>>>>>Let's correct that yet again. GR/SR have an >>>>>>answer which can be found in any textbook but >>>>>>you choose to work very at avoiding understanding >>>>>>it. That's always your option, but you cannot >>>>>>claim to understand an explanation in one post >>>>>>and then deny it even exists in the next. >>>>> >>>>> The GR explanation is meaningless drivel. >>>>> >>>>> "the clock doesn't change but its ticks occupy a 'shorter time >>>>> duration' >>>>> ". >>>>> OR "time itself is dependent on gravity potential". >>>>> >>>>> Does that mean TIME INSTANT, TIME FLOW or TIME ABSOLUTE? >>>> >>>>None of the above, but you said you weren't >>>>interested in what it really says. >>> >>> Well please educate me as to what GR says about GPS clock 'ticks'. >> >>GR says that a perfectly working clock will >>produce ticks at a rate which is a fixed >>number per unit of proper time regardless of >>all other environmental factors. Proper time >>is measured in spacetime in a direction >>tangential to the clock's worldline. If the >>worldlines of two clocks are not parallel, >>it follows that they will show different >>readings between a pair of events. > > Big words...but meaningless drivel. You asked me to educate you so I did, If the big words don't mean anything to you, open a textboook and learn how they are defined. > It says that that if two cars take different routes to go from A to B, > then > their clocks will be different on arrival. No, it says their odometers will be different, but it also says the clocks will differ in the Twins Paradox for the same reason. > George, spatial movements have nothing whatsoevr to do with time or time > flow. > They are totally separate fundamental dimensions. That was the mistake Newton made. >>>>You asked me why your experiment was not >>>>a valid disproof of relativity and I have >>>>told you. If you don't like the answer, >>>>don't ask the question. I won't lie just >>>>to keep you happy. >>> >>> The fact is both observer count N ticks/orbit when the clock is >>> on the ground and N+n when it is orbit. >> >>True, but that says nothing about the ticks >>per second, only the ticks per orbit, and >>they don't agree on the number of seconds >>per orbit. > > George, there are NO SECONDS in this experiment. Can you not get that > into you > head? > There is a fixed orbit duration and a couple of 'tick counters'. "orbit duration" means the number of seconds it takes to complete an orbit. The whole of physics is meaningless maths until you relate the symbols to real-world quantities. >>> ... The time axis is orthogonal to space. Orthogonality >>> can sometimes be handled by using imaginary numbers. So what? Why make T >>> the only imaginary axis? Why not x, y, or z? >>> >>> The length:'sqrt[ x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - t^2]' has an entirely different >>> meaning >>> from the length: 'sqrt[x^2 + y^2 + z^2]' >> >>For the latter, think of the space diagonal >>of a brick. It is invariant under rotation >>of the brick in any direction provided the >>brick is at rest for each measurement. For >>the former it is the separation between any >>two events such as the death of Julius Ceasar >>and that of President Kennedy. It is invariant >>under spatial rotations and also changes of >>speed. > > The CORRECT 4D distance 'sqrt[ x^2 + y^2 + z^2 + t^2]' is also invariant. I'll leave you to try it for yourself. Work it out for say an arm in the MMX and you will find it isn't invariant. Negate the sign on t and you will find it is. >>> In 4D space, the equation is: s^2 = x^2 + y^2 + z^2 + t^2 >> >>That is not invariant. > > Why not. The glib response would be because x, y and z are spatial while t is temporal but that doesn't really answer the question. If you draw two dots on a flat sheet of paper then lay a transparent sheet with a grid on it over the top, you can read off x and y. Turn the grid a bit and you get different values. If you calculate s = sqrt(x^2 + y^2) then s does not vary as you rotate the grid but if you calculate s = sqrt(x^2 - y^2) then s varies. The reason why is because a flat sheet of paper obeys Euclidean geometry but can you tell me what physical property of a flat sheet of paper causes it to obey Euclidean geometry, I can't? What we find by experiemnt is that distances and times between events vary if you rotate the grid you use for measurements but if you calculate s = sqrt(x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - t^2) then the value of s does not vary, and in general spacetime obeys the rules for Reimann geometry, not Euclidean. I can no more explain that than I can say why paper obeys Euclid, but all the experiments tell me that's the way it is. > x^2 + y^2 + z^2 is...you explained why above....and so is t^2. > > If that is incorrect then x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - t^2 is not invariant either. For paper sqrt(x^2 + y^2) is invariant but sqrt(x^2 - y^2) isn't. >>>>> What worries me is that WE as conscious beings experience this 4D >>>>> existence >>>>> continuously. Yet we DO observe movement in that 4D representation. >>>> >>>>No, for example we never observe the death >>>>of Julius Ceasar to be vacationing in the >>>>nineteenth century for a few weeks. Events >>>>don't move. What we experience as movement >>>>is a locus of event in 4D. It does take a >>>>bit of a shift in perspective but it is >>>>quite sound once you get used to it. >>> >>> We see a 4D representation that changes with TIME. >> >>Nope, we do not see the coordinates of the >>death of Julius Ceasar change with time. > > These are 'absolute' time coordinates, are they? The values vary with the coordinate scheme so the year of his death would have a different numerical value in the another calendar, but that number doesn't "change with TIME". >>The location of Julius Ceasar varied with >>time throughout his life, but that is a >>3D point that changes with the fourth so >>four appears adequate (string theory aside). > > George, when Ceasar died, other events were occuring throughout the > universe at > the same instant. > 'NOW' here is NOW everywhere. Wrong again Henri, "now" is the set of events which lie on a surface passing through the event "now, here" and perpendicular to your worldline at that event. Being able to visualise that is what tells me if someone really understands SR because it usually comes across in the way people write. I could tell you didn't see the world that way long before you said this and until you can, you won't really start to understand relativity. >>>>Henri, nothing you have said has falsified >>>>the explanation given by GR which does not >>>>involve a physical change. For anyone who >>>>doesn't know what I mean by that, the clock >>>>produces the same number of ticks per proper >>>>second. >>> >>> You keep saying that.. but you cannot tell me exactly what GR claims. >>> >>> Spell it out George! >> >>No Henri, you claimed to understand this so >>you spell it out and I'll mark your paper. > > You explanation either doesn't exist or contains circular logic. It is no more circular than a proof of Pythagoras theorem, only the sign of the time dimension is different. George
From: Henri Wilson on 24 Jul 2005 05:54 On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 04:41:05 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >news:tse5e1101mdbngkmc7th2s35mf4koo1ijj(a)4ax.com... >> 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. > >The QM view says the probablility of a photon >arriving at a point is proportional to the >classical relative intensity. The sensor used >(a photodiode) responds to the intensity or >the mean rate of photons giving the same >result whichever theory you use. > >>>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'. > >Photodiodes don't. They respond to the intensity >and that includes the modulation applied to the >overall beam in an iFOG. The modulation carried >by the beams is subject to the same time delay >as the carrier. > >>>>>> 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. > >It is a direct measurement of time delay with >no interpretation involved. You get the same >delay in sending time coded signals between >communications satellites. > >>>> 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 sensor responds to intensity, and intensity >in an interferometer varies as the sin of the >relative phase difference. Your suggestion of >hypothetical alternative models for photons >have no effect on that _empirical_ observation. > >> The beams ar not parallel when they reunite. > >They are at the same angle as when the table >was not rotating, and the angle is known to >have no effect on the output of the sensor. You >said you had experience of interferometers and >agreed you had noted that. > >> George, whatever you say wont alter the fact that light leaves its source >> at c. > >Henri, whatever either of us says will not >change the fact that the Sagnac experiment >falsifies your Ritzian ballistic light model. >That's why science is objective. George, in a four mirror sagnac, the source velocity is not in the beam direction. > >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 24 Jul 2005 06:52
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 07:34:50 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >news:2bf5e1tqjdklpcobmvcrck9mkv0nqj1c16(a)4ax.com... >>>> If what you say is correct then the OO would count N-n ticks/orbit when >>>> the >>>> clock was on the ground. >>> >>>(I'll consider just the GR part). >>> >>>The clock generates N ticks per orbit when it >>>is on the ground. The GO says that is N ticks >>>in T seconds giving a rate of R = N/T. The OO >>>also sees the clock generate N ticks per orbit >>>of course but in a time of T+t seconds. >> >> You have already lost the plot, George. >> The are no 'seconds' in this experiment. > >You keep talking about "time" and "duration" >and those are measured in seconds (or multiples >thereof) in physics. No George. The orbit duration is the time standard unit defined as ONE. No 'seconds' are needed. > >>>When the ground is moved up to the OO, it now >>>generates N+n ticks per orbit so both agree >>>the number has increased, but that is a rate >>>of R' = (N+n)/(T+t) ticks, and it turns out >>>that R' = R. The clock is producing the same >>>mnumber of ticks per second in orbit as it did >>>on the ground so there has been no "physical" >>>change as you would call it. >> >> George, there are no 'seconds'. There is a time duration defined by the >> orbit > >Sorry Henry, you asked me to tell you why >your so-called proof was invalid and that >is the reason. The duration of the orbit >is not the same for the GO and OO so you >cannot use it as a definition of a >fundamental unit. The duration of the orbit is not affected by any observer behavior. It is constant throughout the experiment. > >> and there is a clock that 'ticks'. >> There are two observers with counters. >> >>> >>>What you have is a difference in the durations >>>of the orbit according to the GO and the OO, but >>>neither of them thinks that duration has changed >>>as a result of moving the clock. >> >> The orbit has a fixed 'absolute' duration, > >No, it has a fixed duration which is not >absolute, the observers do not agree the >value. George, the orbit has a fixed time duration defined as ONE TIME UNIT. The number of ticks emitted by a clock can be counted during the duration of one orbit. On the other hand, the orbit duration cannot be specified in terms of 'clock ticks' because clocks are not perfect instruments. It is legitimate to say, "the clock ticks 100000 times during one orbit" but not "the orbit duration is 1000000 clock ticks long"...since clocks are only very imperfect human tools. In my experiment, the orbit duration has one and only one value, ONE. >>> >>>Let me again state what we both know. The orbit >>>would have one duration when measured by a clock >>>on the ground (the "ground observer") and a >>>different value when measured by a clock orbiting >>>with the satellite (the "orbiting observer"). >> >> George, does the Earth's daylength vary just because different observers >> measure it differently. > >You just said it yourself, "different >observers measure it differently." So what? One day occupoies te same absolute time duration no matter who looks at it. >> 1 DAY is 1 DAY whether an observer measures it as having 23 hours or 25 >> hours. > >That's why the old definition of a period of >light followed by a period of darkness just >isn't good enough for physics. That is beyond my comprehension. > >> It is ONE DAY. >> Similarly ONE ORBIT IS 'ONE ORBIT'. >> >>> >>>If you assume "the orbit has ONE value for its >>>duration" then you are assuming something >>>contradictory to SR/GR. Your gedanken is not >>>a proof of anything, it is entirely circular >>>because it starts by assuming its conclusion. >> >> George, of course I am assuming something different from SR. > >Then your so-called proof only shows that >"something different" to be incorrect, not >SR or GR. We call that a strawman. A constant orbit duration is a good enough time standard for my experiment. I accept that is may change over many years. That is beside the point. It is much more stable than any man made clocks and it can be used by all observers. > >> I'm hardly likely to assume SR corect when I am proving it wrong. > >You need to learn some basic logic Henri. Like, "SR says A=B so, if A = B then all the equations and predictions of SR can be derived..so SR must be correct". Trouble is, A has never been shown to be equal to B. >>>The angle between the time axes of the clock >>>and the observers. I thought you claimed you >>>already understood relativity. >> >> True relativity yes. > >There is only one. We'll see what you say later. I am a true relativist. >>> >>>GR says that a perfectly working clock will >>>produce ticks at a rate which is a fixed >>>number per unit of proper time regardless of >>>all other environmental factors. Proper time >>>is measured in spacetime in a direction >>>tangential to the clock's worldline. If the >>>worldlines of two clocks are not parallel, >>>it follows that they will show different >>>readings between a pair of events. >> >> Big words...but meaningless drivel. > >You asked me to educate you so I did, If the >big words don't mean anything to you, open a >textboook and learn how they are defined. George, what is a worldline? It is a straight 'line' in 4D. So what? > >> It says that that if two cars take different routes to go from A to B, >> then >> their clocks will be different on arrival. > >No, it says their odometers will be different, >but it also says the clocks will differ in >the Twins Paradox for the same reason. .....which makes absolutely no sense...as any 5yo kid will tell you. > >> George, spatial movements have nothing whatsoevr to do with time or time >> flow. >> They are totally separate fundamental dimensions. > >That was the mistake Newton made. Newton's only mistake was that he died too early. >> >> George, there are NO SECONDS in this experiment. Can you not get that >> into you >> head? >> There is a fixed orbit duration and a couple of 'tick counters'. > >"orbit duration" means the number of seconds >it takes to complete an orbit. The whole of >physics is meaningless maths until you relate >the symbols to real-world quantities. Orbit duration is ONE UNIT OF TIME. A second can be defined as intervals of an orbit ...as is done in the case of our Earth day. You have the cart confused with the horse, George. >> >> The CORRECT 4D distance 'sqrt[ x^2 + y^2 + z^2 + t^2]' is also invariant. > >I'll leave you to try it for yourself. Work it >out for say an arm in the MMX and you will find >it isn't invariant. Negate the sign on t and you >will find it is. The arm of the MMX is x. It is invariant. > >>>> In 4D space, the equation is: s^2 = x^2 + y^2 + z^2 + t^2 >>> >>>That is not invariant. >> >> Why not. > >The glib response would be because x, y and z >are spatial while t is temporal but that doesn't >really answer the question. > >If you draw two dots on a flat sheet of paper >then lay a transparent sheet with a grid on it >over the top, you can read off x and y. Turn >the grid a bit and you get different values. >If you calculate s = sqrt(x^2 + y^2) then s >does not vary as you rotate the grid but if >you calculate s = sqrt(x^2 - y^2) then s >varies. The reason why is because a flat sheet >of paper obeys Euclidean geometry but can you >tell me what physical property of a flat sheet >of paper causes it to obey Euclidean geometry, >I can't? I can. Direction is not absolute. If you are sealed in a remote space capsule, x, y and z directions can only be defined by you. I haven't quite worked out how this fits in with my theory of thre time subdimensions. Each DOES seem to have a definite purpose. > >What we find by experiemnt is that distances >and times between events vary if you rotate >the grid you use for measurements but if you >calculate s = sqrt(x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - t^2) then >the value of s does not vary, and in general >spacetime obeys the rules for Reimann geometry, >not Euclidean. I can no more explain that than >I can say why paper obeys Euclid, but all the >experiments tell me that's the way it is. Fortunately I don't have to worry about such trivialities because I live in a simlated instantaneous universe. I use a grid of synched clocks to inform me of WHAT happens WHEN. They are E-synched of course. I also use a Euclidean set of axes fixed in relation to my body. ...and I use TIME, quite separately from space. > >> x^2 + y^2 + z^2 is...you explained why above....and so is t^2. >> >> If that is incorrect then x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - t^2 is not invariant either. > >For paper sqrt(x^2 + y^2) is invariant but >sqrt(x^2 - y^2) isn't. I think you are becoming quite confused George. > >>>>>> What worries me is that WE as conscious beings experience this 4D >>>>>> existence >>>>>> continuously. Yet we DO observe movement in that 4D representation. >>>>> >>>>>No, for example we never observe the death >>>>>of Julius Ceasar to be vacationing in the >>>>>nineteenth century for a few weeks. Events >>>>>don't move. What we experience as movement >>>>>is a locus of event in 4D. It does take a >>>>>bit of a shift in perspective but it is >>>>>quite sound once you get used to it. >>>>>>>> We see a 4D representation that changes with TIME. >>> >>>Nope, we do not see the coordinates of the >>>death of Julius Ceasar change with time. >> >> These are 'absolute' time coordinates, are they? > >The values vary with the coordinate scheme so >the year of his death would have a different >numerical value in the another calendar, but >that number doesn't "change with TIME". All you have done is shift the zero and use another time duration standard unit. Even you should know how to convert Joules to BTUs > >>>The location of Julius Ceasar varied with >>>time throughout his life, but that is a >>>3D point that changes with the fourth so >>>four appears adequate (string theory aside). >> >> George, when Ceasar died, other events were occuring throughout the >> universe at >> the same instant. >> 'NOW' here is NOW everywhere. > >Wrong again Henri, "now" is the set of >events which lie on a surface passing through >the event "now, here" and perpendicular to >your worldline at that event. George, as you read this message, event are occuring throughout the whole universe. Your 'present' is their 'present'. Just because you wont see them for maybe thousands of years doesn't alter that fact. >Being able to >visualise that is what tells me if someone >really understands SR because it usually comes >across in the way people write. I could tell >you didn't see the world that way long before >you said this and until you can, you won't >really start to understand relativity. George, I have never really argued with a muslim fanatic but I should imagine their attitude would be very similar to yours. "faith is fact, fact is faith!" Unfortunately, like any religious fanatic, you cannot appreciate how nonsenical your belief system appears to the non-indoctrinated. > >>>>>Henri, nothing you have said has falsified >>>>>the explanation given by GR which does not >>>>>involve a physical change. For anyone who >>>>>doesn't know what I mean by that, the clock >>>>>produces the same number of ticks per proper >>>>>second. >>>> >>>> You keep saying that.. but you cannot tell me exactly what GR claims. >>>> >>>> Spell it out George! >>> >>>No Henri, you claimed to understand this so >>>you spell it out and I'll mark your paper. >> >> You explanation either doesn't exist or contains circular logic. > >It is no more circular than a proof of >Pythagoras theorem, only the sign of the >time dimension is different. Hint: GR says the clock doeen't chaneg, TIME does. Now, can you enlarge on that? > >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. |