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 1 Aug 2005 19:40 George Dishman wrote: <snip> > That is not correct, the light travels in > the same direction as the motion of the > source in this experiment. <snip> George, for someone who keeps telling me to look up the experiment, you seem woefully ignorant of the basics. Transverse doppler shift is a frequency change seen when theta equals 90 degrees -- that is, when the direction of motion of the light source is at a right angle to a line from the source to the detector (as seen by the detector). Here's a URL for you: http://www.du.edu/~jcalvert/phys/doppler.htm#Tran from which this (much shortened) definition was abstracted, and in which it is stated that "Transverse doppler shift was first seen spectroscopically in the Ives-Stilwell experiment (1938)". If the angle were zero between the direction of motion of the source and the line the light travels along from source to observer (as seen by the observer), that would be parallel (or co-linear), not transverse. If the angle in Ives-Stilwell was somewhere between 0 and 90 degrees then that is an experimental design flaw in an experiment designed to detect the phenomenon in question. Note that there is a similar experiment, Hasselkamp et al., Z. Physik A289 (1989), p.151, which is said to be improved because of "a measurement which is truly at 90 degrees in the lab". A few more things. First, contrary to your initial claim that "no clocks are used in the experiment, implied or otherwise", perhaps you were unaware that the title of the Ives Stilwell paper is "An Experimental Study of the Rate of a Moving Atomic Clock". J. Opt. Soc. Am. 28 215-226 (1938), and part II in JOSA 31 369-374 (1941). Second, clock synchronization IS necessary for the reason I have already given: it is necessary in order to insure that, from the observer's perspective, the light is emitted by a source along a line which is at 90 degrees to the direction of motion of the source. Only then can frequency changes be attributed to "time dilation" and not to other factors. The whole reason that such experiments are held (by SR proponents) to demonstrate SR is that SR and classical theory make different predictions with respect to the measurement in question for theta=90 degrees. Third, Ives and Stilwell concluded that their experiment did NOT support relativistic time dilation. Fourth, for an experiment which is cited extensively on the Web and Usenet, it is next to impossible to find a reprint. One would imagine that the two published experiments (1938 and 1941) by Ives and Stilwell would be in the public domain by now and available on the Web. But no. Fifth, clock synchronization is always *presumed* by SR and is always fundamental, and if a published experiment purporting to measure "time dilation" fails to include it explicitly, it is either because it is implied, or because as a fundamental preparation it is previous to the experiment proper and therefore omitted from a paper reporting new results rather than the fundamentals of experimental design in SR, or else because the experiment omitted it altogether and is therefore theoretically unsound. Nor will clock synchronization always be described in terms of "clock synchronization". But it's there, or if it's not, all bets are off. Mark Adkins msadkins04(a)yahoo.com
From: Paul B. Andersen on 2 Aug 2005 15:53 Henri Wilson wrote: > On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 14:55:58 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: > > >>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >>news:b6rae1lksg8anak0sftqi7ck0mfbgtuf8j(a)4ax.com... >>>Funny how so many variable stars fit the BaT predictions, eh? >> >>None so far? You gave me one example but the >>distance was wrong and when I corrected that >>it didn't match at all. You also didn't have >>any scales on the axes so I couldn't confirm >>if you had matched the velocity curve before >>deriving the intensity curve. George is right, isn't he? None so far. >>I haven't seen the results Paul mentioned for >>HD80715 but I pointed out to you many months >>ago that a non-eclipsing spectroscopic binary >>which was not variable was the correct test, >>matching variables proves nothing. Paul's >>comments suggest your result was what I >>expected, the star should be variable but isn't. George guessed right, didn't he? Thats why you do not comment on the issue, but answer like this: > Andersen has become a useless troll. His brain can no longer accommodate logic > or truth. You hate to be reminded, don't you? :-) Paul
From: Henri Wilson on 2 Aug 2005 20:27 On 31 Jul 2005 19:18:01 -0700, "Jeff Root" <jeff5(a)freemars.org> wrote: >On July 24, 2005, Henri Wilson wrote: > >> 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. > >Orbit periods actually change fairly rapidly and unpredictably, >even at the altitude of GPS satellites (20,200 km). > >The constantly-changing directions and distances to the Moon >and Sun relative to a satellite orbiting Earth can change the >period of a satellite in a roughly 12-hour orbit by more than >a second from one orbit to the next. > >The uneven distribution of mass in the Earth can also change >the period of a satellite by more than a second per orbit. > >Solar light pressure, which is constant while a satellite is in >sunlight, and solar wind pressure, which varies greatly from one >part of an orbit to another and with the changing level of solar >activity, can also change the period by more than a second per >orbit. > >In contrast, cesium and rubidium atomic clocks are accurate to >better than one part in 10^15, or less than 0.0000000001 second >variation in 12 hours. > >The period of an orbit can be a useful standard in a thought >experiment, but in real experiments, atomic clocks provide a >time standard which is more than ten billion times as stable. > > -- Jeff, in Minneapolis The orbit in my experiment is a perfect one. If it is impossible to asceratin the start and end points of a real GPS orbit then, as I have already poiunted out, there is no way hte GR correction has been verified to any degree of accuracy. So all you DHRs can put up or shut up forever. 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 2 Aug 2005 20:41 On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 15:40:51 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >news:cap6e114ilco03tsofrr2vhup1q23dr7lb(a)4ax.com... >> On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 07:34:50 +0100, "George Dishman" >> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >> wrote: >>>> >>>> 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. > >You cannot define two different values as both >being "one unit". What sense would it make to >say that GPS satellites and geo-stationary >orbits both have a duration of "one unit"? The orbit duration has only one constant duration during the experiment. It doesn't have to be measured by anybody. It can be assigned the value 'one' by definition. > >> No 'seconds' are needed. > ><snip repetition> > >> In my experiment, the orbit duration has one and only one value, ONE. > >No Henri, in your experiment there is a satellite >which is in orbit past some reference marker. To >find out the duration, you then have to make >measurements. You are making an assumption that >a single value will be obtained by all observers >that can be used as a unit. George, you are proving to be as dense as other SRians. At no stage of the experiment does anyone attempt to measure the orbit duration. It simply IS a fixed duration. We'll call it 'one' (absolute) time unit. Observers count the number of clock ticks emitter per standard time unit, both before and after launch.. ><snip again, we have covered most of what you >said repeatedly> > >>>> 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. > >Constant for any observer is fine, but you >cannot assume it is single valued. The >concepts of "constant" and "single valued" >are not the same and your attempts to >conflate them to hide the flaw in your >argument will not succeed. Its value is ONE by definition. > >> It is >> much more stable than any man made clocks and it can be used by all >> observers. > >Real orbits are nowhere as stable as the clocks, >that's why the GPS system constantly transmits >updates to the satellite ephemerides. However, >in a gedanken we can assume it is perfectly >constant. That doesn't solve your problem though, >the duration is still not single valued. Then the 'GR correction' can never have been verified.....but we knew that didn't we George? > >>>> 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". > >You mean as you are trying to do with variable >star curves? No. > >Basic logic is this, if you want to test a theory >(A) then you set up an experiment and use the >theory to predict the outcome (B). If B contradicts >the postulates of A then you have falsified the >theory. > >Your gedanken assumes something that contradicts >GR so your result is not a proof that GR is wrong, >is is simply a restatement of your assumption. > >You can do the whole thing much more easily by >saying "I assume Newton was correct about absolute >time, therefore GR is wrong.". You proof has no >more content than that. > >>>>>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. > >Not necessarily. > >> So what? > >You asked me to tell you what GR said about >clocks so I told you, that's what. If you >didn't want to be told, you shouldn't have >asked. > >>>> 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. > >True, I don't expect a 5 year old to understand >non-euclidean geometry, but I had hoped I could >treat you as an adult. > >>>> 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. > >I have news for you Henri, one second hasn't been >defined as an interval of an orbit for some time, >and the duration of an Earth day has _never_ been >defined as a part of an orbit. > >> You have the cart confused with the horse, George. > >Your horse is a donkey Henri. > >>>> 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. > >You have made a mistake in your calculation. >Show your working if you need help. > >>>>>> 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 agree, but why does that result in Euclidean >geometry instead of some other variety? > >Note also, since t must be orthogonal to >x, y and z, that means your definition >of the spatial axes also defines your >time axis. > >>>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. > >Why, that's just Pythagoras. > >>>>>>>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 > >Right, so the coordinates vary with the origin >and scale of the axes and are not 'absolute' >in that sense, but they also vary with the >orientation of the axes - as you said direction >is not absolute in space but it is also not >absolute in spacetime. However, the interval >between two events doesn't vary if you calculate >it using the formula I gave earlier. That can be >said to be absolute. > >>>>>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. > >Of course. > >> Your 'present' is their 'present'. > >No Henri, your selection of which events >occur simultaneously with your 'now' does >not match the set of events which are >simultaneously with my 'now'. That's >another outdated philosophy that has to >be discarded. > >> Just because you wont see them for maybe thousands of years doesn't alter >> that fact. > >Agreed. > >>>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!" > >No Henri, that is your attitude, you still hold >to your faith in the Ritzian model even though >Sagnac rules it out. My ideas on physics and >cosmology are derived from experiment and >observation and in the latter case are really >quite fluid. The new information coming from >current astronomy is changing theories rapidly. > >> Unfortunately, like any religious fanatic, you cannot appreciate how >> nonsenical your belief system appears to the non-indoctrinated. > >I'm sure non-Euclidean geometry would seem >nonsensical to most five year olds too but >that doesn't stop the universe being that way. > >Arthur C. Clark said "Any sufficiently advanced >technology is indistinguishable from magic." > >In this case, "Any sufficiently advanced theory >is indistinguishable from nonsensical." > >>>>>>>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? > >I can correct it, GR doesn't say time changes, >you are simply exhibiting your ignorance of GR >yet again. > >I've told you above what it actually says about >clocks so I'll leave it to you to do your >homework if you want to understand. If you don't >want to understand (as you have stated), then >there's no point in my explaining again. > >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 2 Aug 2005 20:42
On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 21:53:51 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 14:55:58 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >> wrote: >> >> >>>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >>>news:b6rae1lksg8anak0sftqi7ck0mfbgtuf8j(a)4ax.com... >>>>Funny how so many variable stars fit the BaT predictions, eh? >>> >>>None so far? You gave me one example but the >>>distance was wrong and when I corrected that >>>it didn't match at all. You also didn't have >>>any scales on the axes so I couldn't confirm >>>if you had matched the velocity curve before >>>deriving the intensity curve. > >George is right, isn't he? >None so far. > >>>I haven't seen the results Paul mentioned for >>>HD80715 but I pointed out to you many months >>>ago that a non-eclipsing spectroscopic binary >>>which was not variable was the correct test, >>>matching variables proves nothing. Paul's >>>comments suggest your result was what I >>>expected, the star should be variable but isn't. > >George guessed right, didn't he? > >Thats why you do not comment on the issue, >but answer like this: >> Andersen has become a useless troll. His brain can no longer accommodate logic >> or truth. > >You hate to be reminded, don't you? :-) Your next annual vacation would be better spent in Iran. > >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. |