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 6 Aug 2005 06:50 <msadkins04(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1122939604.742482.149060(a)f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > 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 I am well aware of that but that is not how the experiment was done which is why I suggested you look it up. > 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. No, it is intelligent design of the experiment. The problem with making a measurement at 90 degrees is that it requires that you know the speed of atoms independently any slight error in setting up the angle leads to inaccuracy in the result. Instead they took measurements at both 0 and 90 and averaged. Here is a description and a diagram: http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/relativity/Ives-Stilwell-Method.jpg > 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". The phrase "truly at 90 degrees" is your hint that Ives and Stilwell's experiment was not at 90 degrees. > 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). Indeed, as I said before the atoms act as a clock but only the frequency matters. You cannot synchronise a single atom, it has no hands ;-) The results of the experiement were observed using a spectrograph so there is nothing else to synchronise to anyway. > 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. Doing it the way Ives and Stilwell did, the difference v1'-v2' measures the speed while dv/v (see the above link) gives you the transverse component. > 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. Who cares, results are results and only in combination with other experiments can we resolve theories. Sagnac thought his experiment disproved SR but he had simply misunderstood the theory, and in fact his results eliminate Ritzian theory hence actually support SR. Those are actually good examples of how the scientific method can overcome prejudice and bias. > 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. I've posted a copy from a textbook. I had found a diagram almost the same in an existing site some weeks ago but I can't find it again :-( > 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. The experiment presumes nothing, just send some ions down a tube and view the light on a spectrograph. You need to learn a bit about experimental technique. Ives and Stilwell measured time dilation without using any clocks or synchronising anything, just a spectrograph, a mirror and a beam of ions from a hydrogen arc. George
From: Henri Wilson on 6 Aug 2005 20:23 On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 16:52:25 +0100, Jonathan Silverlight <jsilverlight(a)spam.merseia.fsnet.co.uk.invalid> wrote: >In message <1123244370.008039.104540(a)g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Jeff >Root <jeff5(a)freemars.org> writes >>Henri Wilson replied to Jeff Root: >>> >>> The clocks physically change due to all kinds of reasns when being >>> sent into orbit. >> >>More speculation, and contrary to the actual facts. >> > >I notice Henri doesn't give any references for his ideas, My work is original, so there ARE no references. >but he should >consider that in a very real sense the delicate mechanisms aren't the >clocks, rather the properties of single atoms inside them. >Similarly, relativity uses the decay time of muons and the rotation of >pulsars to measure things where man-made clocks can't go. By using the GPS orbit as a constant time duration reference I can place an observer both in the orbit and on the ground. How do you suggest we place an observer on a pulsar? Will you volunteer? .. 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 7 Aug 2005 06:35 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:a5lqe1htlas0agci0o5m2ehst6avhecaa4(a)4ax.com... > 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... >>> On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 22:51:10 +0100, "George Dishman" >>> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >>>>news:mns6e19u5avng3hjrrl43kq3gtl20oqbqd(a)4ax.com... >>>>> On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 04:22:28 +0100, "George Dishman" >>>>> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >>> >>>>>>Which part of "experimentally verified" did you >>>>>>fail to understand? >>>>> >>>>> George, "if your faith is strong enough, you will find evidence for it >>>>> everywhere". >>>>> __ Pope John 111. >>>> >>>>Indeed, like pretending single variable stars >>>>are binaries with invisible companions to fit >>>>your philosophy while ignoring the unarguable >>>>evidence from Sagnac that your model for the >>>>propagation of light is wrong. >>> >>> What happens near Earth and what happens in empty space are totally >>> different >>> topics. >> >>The laws of nature are universal by definition >>so the way light interacts with particles can >>be determined. > > George do you really think the universe will behave in any way an SRian > chooses > to define? > This is ludicrous! It is indeed so why say it? The laws of nature controlled the behaviour of the universe long before Man existed. All we can do is infer mathematical models of those laws from observation and experiment. The point is that, at the basic level of single interactions, the rules governing the behaviour are universal. The botttom line is that the formula I used is one which has been empirically verified in the radiological field while you are just hand- waving yet you tried to criticise my grasp of experimental physics. A case of the pot calling a stainless-steel kettle black I think. >>How it behaves at a macroscopic >>level can then be predicted by combining many >>such interactions. > > You are rambling meaninglessly, George. OK, I'm talking beyond your comprehension. >>>>The people who build radiological equipment >>>>don't give a toss about photon models, all >>>>they want is an equation that fits the data. >>>>That is what experimental physics is about, it >>>>is confirmed by reality regardless of belief. >>> >>> 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. >> >>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. > > Andersen has become a useless troll. ... I note that you have to resort to an ad-hominen attack, presumably because you cannot deny what he said. > His brain can no longer accommodate logic > or truth. The logic of this situation is simple. If a hypothesis says "All members if set A must also be members of set B." then we can falsify it by finding a member of set A which is not a member of set B. BaT says all stars which are components of a binary system other than those where we lie on the axis of the orbit must exhibit variable light curves. The test is therefore to examine systems which are binary but are not variable. Your attempts to match the curves of variable stars are therefore pointless. >>> I suppose that isn't experimental evidence though, eh George? >> >>It is Henri, and what I have seen it again >>falsifies your theory. > > No it doesn't George. It is a spectroscopic binary. It is not variable. Unless you can show you can set up parameters that match the spectroscopic data and have a light curve variation less than the uncertainty in the measurements, BaT is falsified. George
From: George Dishman on 7 Aug 2005 07:03 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:1s30f19m2mpda3ebp9470uttllf0o38nh4(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 15:40:51 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: Much trimmed as you didn't comment, mostly other side issues. >>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. By assuming "only one ... duration", you require that time be absolute. In GR time is not absolute. You can therefore simplify your "proof" to this: "Henri assumes time is absolute. Time in is not absolute, therefore GR is wrong." Nothing you have said in this thread adds any more to that paragraph, it is nothing but an assertion of your belief. >>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. You mean they saw through your parlour trick as easily and didn't let you get away with it either? I can't say I'm surprised. >>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? The 'GR correction' is about 38us per day. The clocks on the craft are stable to about 4ns per day and their stability is measured and broadcast as part of the craft "health", one of the factors the receivers take into account. All that is separate from ground clock steering which is needed to correct for things like the effect of mountain ranges and ocean trenches so the effect is constantly verified to about one part in 10,000. If the duration of the orbit measured by the GO is defined as 1 unit exactly, then the duration measured by the OO would be 1.00000000044. If you define the OO duration as 1 unit exactly the GO duration is 0.99999999956. The correction factor is the ratio of the two. All you are doing is saying that both durations are going to be called "one unit" hence the ratio is exactly 1 solely because of your definition. It is of course a nonsensical argument two declare two different times to be the value of the same unit. > Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. > The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong. Not if this thread is your idea of a proof. It demonstrates the conditional statement "If time is absolute, GR is philosophically wrong though scientifically accurate." but as a falsification of GR, it is worthless. George
From: George Dishman on 7 Aug 2005 07:10
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1123191388.993094.7930(a)f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 15:40:51 +0100, "George Dishman" >> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >> wrote: >> >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 > > Is Henri really as dense as he pretends to be? Not dense. If you talk to him on areas which are not contentious, he will follow and discuss things reasonably. It is only when you get to some point that threatens his cherished beliefs that he loses it. He will put his fingers in his ears and whistle Dixie until he's blue in the face (or drops dead) before acknowledging anything that shows his ideas are wrong. Look at his reaction to the Sagnac experiment. While working through his simulation, he talked about the details and worked on the simulation perfectly sensibly. It was only when he realised all his objections had been removed that he had to say that behaviour in the vacuum of space is different to that in the lab and invent a host of spurious excuses for ignoring the whole thing. His behaviour is not untypical of several of the posters in the group. George |