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 7 Aug 2005 17:51 George Dishman wrote: > <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 George, your comments here and previously suggest that you don't have a handle on this. Have *you* looked up the original paper? Because your link is to a highly simplified abstract from what appears to be an undergraduate text. Since you've made some rather definite assertions about what *isn't* in the experiment, the question isn't rhetorical. I think you're misinterpreting Ives-Stilwell. There are two related phenomena: doppler shift (DS), and transverse doppler shift (TDS). Ives-Stilwell deals with TDS. DS is a primary effect and is most noticeable when light from a moving source is traveling in the same direction as the direction of motion of the source. TDS is a secondary effect that is swamped by the primary effect (DS) and cannot even be detected unless that primary effect is eliminated. The mirror in Ives-Stilwell, reflecting light which travels down the tube in the direction of motion of the source, is intended to do this by means of destructive interference. That is, the light traveling in the direction of motion of the light source, is reflected by the mirror and travels back down the tube parallel to but in the opposite direction, in such a way that the net result is to eliminate the primary effect. Only then can the transverse (secondary) effect be viewed by an observer along a line which is transverse to (i.e., at a right angle to) the direction of motion of the source. Now, I've tried to explain to you the meaning of the word "transverse" in the context of the term "transverse doppler shift", but you just keep ignoring me. First you said that the light travels in the same direction as the source -- but this is not transverse. Then you said that light is measured at 0 degrees and 90 degrees (parallel and transverse) and an average taken. You are clearly muddling this, since the effect to be measured by Ives-Stilwell was *transverse* doppler shift, the secondary effect which cannot even be detected unless the primary effect (light at 0 degrees) is suppressed. You also say that measurements at 90 degrees are impractical, because any slight error in the angle leads to inaccuracy in the result, yet you simultaneously assert that the measurement results are an average of *measurements taken at 90 degrees* and at 0 degrees. Since you keep telling me to "look up the experiment" I presume you have access to the actual published paper. Please post copies of both the 1938 and the follow-up 1941 papers by Ives and Stilwell, in the same way that you did for your little undergrad textbook abstract. I can't think of any other way to decisively resolve this matter in a way that you are likely to accept, since you refuse to accept standard definitions of both "transverse" and "transverse doppler shift", as well as rejecting standard SR theoretical requirements regarding synchronous clocks at spacetime points where observed events occur. > > > 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. On the contrary, this should be a clue to you that Ives-Stilwell used light as close to 90 degrees as they could insure, within the range of experimental error imposed by the technical limitations of their era. > > > 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 ;-) Again, you propose a brittle, literalist interpretation of the term "clock" and of more subtle forms of clock synchronization. As I said before, these particles were accelerated and T=D/R. Again, post the original paper and I'll see what I have to work with! Mark Adkins msadkins04(a)yahoo.com
From: Henri Wilson on 7 Aug 2005 19:20 On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 12:03:55 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"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." 'Now' HERE is NOW everywhere. What could be more obvious? > >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. George, would you agree that an orbit occupies a length of time? Would you agree that this 'duration' DOES NOT CHANGE when differently moving observers go past? Would you therefore agree that the fact that the duration is not affected by any observer movement makes it an ideal common time reference unit? Note: the aim is NOT to try to assign a value to the orbit duration (which is what you seem intent on doing) but to use its constancy as a standard. > >> 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. GR is based on thought experiments. It proves itself wrong by similar thought 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: Henri Wilson on 7 Aug 2005 19:44 On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 11:35:03 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"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. He says virtually nothing at all these days. > >> 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. George, what do you hope to achieve by making such obviously untrue statements. The BaT produces many curves almost exactly. > >>>> 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. I have already done it. > >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: George Dishman on 9 Aug 2005 15:27 <msadkins04(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1123451473.180380.122870(a)g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > George Dishman wrote: >> <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 > > George, your comments here and previously suggest that you don't have a > handle on this. I'm not surprised, there was a significant typo in that last paragraph. It should have read "Instead they took measurements at both 0 and 180 and averaged.". I am really sorry for the confusion that has caused. Near 0 and 180, the first-order shift is almost independent of the angle and any error affects the two readings in opposite directions hence tends to cancel when averaged. The second order effect is independent of the angle. > Have *you* looked up the original paper? Because your > link is to a highly simplified abstract from what appears to be an > undergraduate text. Since you've made some rather definite assertions > about what *isn't* in the experiment, the question isn't rhetorical. You are right, my information comes from undergraduate books (an old Halliday & Resnick) and web sites but I have checked several sources to make sure they all describe the same method. I haven't seen the whole original paper, however there are scanned parts here http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys314/lectures/doppler/doppler.html In particular look at the construction of the tube and placement of the mirror. > I think you're misinterpreting Ives-Stilwell. There are two related > phenomena: doppler shift (DS), and transverse doppler shift (TDS). > Ives-Stilwell deals with TDS. DS is a primary effect and is most > noticeable when light from a moving source is traveling in the same > direction as the direction of motion of the source. TDS is a secondary > effect that is swamped by the primary effect (DS) and cannot even be > detected unless that primary effect is eliminated. Yes, I agree with all that. > The mirror in > Ives-Stilwell, reflecting light which travels down the tube in the > direction of motion of the source, is intended to do this by means of > destructive interference. No, that's wrong, you do not get interference of that type with light of different frequencies. What they did was project the light onto a spectroscope and measure the red-shifted light via the mirror and blue-shifted light directly against light from a static reference. > That is, the light traveling in the > direction of motion of the light source, is reflected by the mirror and > travels back down the tube parallel to but in the opposite direction, > in such a way that the net result is to eliminate the primary effect. Sort of, but the removal of the first order effect is by the subsequent subtraction of the two measured line displacements. The transverse effect red-shifts both beams so is not cancelled. > Only then can the transverse (secondary) effect be viewed by an > observer along a line which is transverse to (i.e., at a right angle > to) the direction of motion of the source. > > Now, I've tried to explain to you the meaning of the word "transverse" > in the context of the term "transverse doppler shift", but you just > keep ignoring me. That's only because you are saying something with which I am entirely familiar. I have no disagreement with what you said on that point at all, but Ives and Stilwell didn't do the experiment the way you suggest. > First you said that the light travels in the same > direction as the source -- but this is not transverse. Then you said > that light is measured at 0 degrees and 90 degrees (parallel and > transverse) and an average taken. You are clearly muddling this, Yes, I meant to say 180, not 90 degrees. Sorry. > since > the effect to be measured by Ives-Stilwell was *transverse* doppler > shift, the secondary effect which cannot even be detected unless the > primary effect (light at 0 degrees) is suppressed. You also say that > measurements at 90 degrees are impractical, because any slight error in > the angle leads to inaccuracy in the result, yet you simultaneously > assert that the measurement results are an average of *measurements > taken at 90 degrees* and at 0 degrees. Again, it was a typo. > Since you keep telling me to "look up the experiment" I presume you > have access to the actual published paper. No, I simply intended you to check it in your own textbooks or on the web if you don't have any handy. They all give the same description, as does the page above which includes scanned excerpts from the paper. > Please post copies of both > the 1938 and the follow-up 1941 papers by Ives and Stilwell, in the > same way that you did for your little undergrad textbook abstract. I > can't think of any other way to decisively resolve this matter in a way > that you are likely to accept, since you refuse to accept standard > definitions of both "transverse" and "transverse doppler shift", as No, I just made a typo. "Transverse Doppler" is the same as "time dilation" and can be seen directly in a source moving at exactly 90 degrees to the direction of observation but that is difficult. However it is a term that enters into the Doppler formula at any angle and Ives and Stilwell chose to use 0 and 180 and subtract the two measured shifts to cancel the first order term. > well as rejecting standard SR theoretical requirements regarding > synchronous clocks at spacetime points where observed events occur. We haven't even talked about that and in general I doubt I would disagree, but that's another subject. The Ives-Stilwell experiment didn't measure the times of any events, they only measured the second order component of the Doppler shift using a spectrograph. That's why I raised it because it illustrates that time dilation can be measured without clocks or syncronisation. >> > 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. > > On the contrary, this should be a clue to you that Ives-Stilwell used > light as close to 90 degrees as they could insure, within the range of > experimental error imposed by the technical limitations of their era. > >> >> > 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 ;-) > > Again, you propose a brittle, literalist interpretation of the term > "clock" and of more subtle forms of clock synchronization. As I said > before, these particles were accelerated and T=D/R. Again, post the > original paper and I'll see what I have to work with! Sorry I don't have it but see the description of their method on the page linked above or any textbook that covers it, I think you will find they all say the same. George
From: George Dishman on 10 Aug 2005 14:21
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:m27df1dq3aapq9io3m86e4hav661qs96o2(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 11:35:03 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: .... >>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. > > George, what do you hope to achieve by making such obviously untrue > statements. > The BaT produces many curves almost exactly. You have shown me only one, and you had the distance wrong by a factor of five. Once that error was corrected, it didn't fit. I can only base my comments on what I have seen. >>[HD80715] 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. > > I have already done it. Then why don't you show me the curves you get and the parameters required to achieve it. I will be happy to admit you have some successes when I see them. George |