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 10 Aug 2005 14:49 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:j75df1585qm4scri82v1iu2qoq1iethmui(a)4ax.com... > 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: >> >>>>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." Small typo, that should have read "Time in GR is not absolute ..." > 'Now' HERE is NOW everywhere. > > What could be more obvious? That follows from the definition of 'now'. However it is true in both SR and Newtonian models. Perhaps you meant that the events constituting 'now' would be agreed by different observers. >>Nothing you have said in this thread adds any more >>to that paragraph, it is nothing but an assertion >>of your belief. The above is still true. >>> 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? The orbit occupies some amount of time as measured by the GO. It also occupies an amount of time as measured by the OO. The two amounts differ by a factor of 1.00000000044. > Would you agree that this 'duration' DOES NOT CHANGE when differently > moving > observers go past? The amount measured by the GO is not changed by the passage of the OO, assuming the OO doesn't have sufficient mass to create a significant gravitational field of course ;-) And vice versa as well. > 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? The duration measured by an observer will be changed if the motion of that observer changes, that's a different point. However, regrdless of any of that, I would say it was a very poor reference. First of all your perfect orbit is entirely hypothetical, real orbits vary far more than real clocks. Second, to do any sort of scientific work, I want the clock portable so that I can set it up beside the experiment to be measured. Using an orbit is somewhat impractical. > 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. You can use the value of the duration of the orbit say measured by the GO as your standard i.e. your unit of duration, and then all other durations can be given a numerical value which is the ratio of their duration to that standard. So far that is just replacing the second with an alternative and that's fine. However having done that, you cannot assume the duration of the orbit measured by the OO is also one unit, you have to measure it and express it as a multiple of the duration observed by the GO. The result will be 1.00000000044, not 1.0 and before you moan about defining the unit, no you cannot define 1.00000000044 as being 1.0. >>> 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. If it contained INTERNAL inconsistencies then that would be possible, you could show it was not SELF-consistent. As long as you introduce an EXTERNAL assumption which is inconsistent, all you do is prove that the two are not compatible. You have shown that if time is absolute then GR is wrong and if GR is right then time is not absolute, but we all know that anyway. What you haven't done is show GR to be wrong, only that it conflicts with your assumptions. George
From: Henri Wilson on 10 Aug 2005 19:37 On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 19:49:52 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >news:j75df1585qm4scri82v1iu2qoq1iethmui(a)4ax.com... >> On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 12:03:55 +0100, "George Dishman" > >> 'Now' HERE is NOW everywhere. >> >> What could be more obvious? > >That follows from the definition of 'now'. However >it is true in both SR and Newtonian models. Perhaps >you meant that the events constituting 'now' would >be agreed by different observers.] No George, I mean that "RIGHT NOW, something is happening both here and everywhere else". > >>>Nothing you have said in this thread adds any more >>>to that paragraph, it is nothing but an assertion >>>of your belief. > >The above is still true. > >>>> 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? > >The orbit occupies some amount of time as measured >by the GO. It also occupies an amount of time as >measured by the OO. The two amounts differ by a >factor of 1.00000000044. That was not the question George. It was "does the orbit occupy an interval of time?" I didn't request a value for that interval. > >> Would you agree that this 'duration' DOES NOT CHANGE when differently >> moving >> observers go past? > >The amount measured by the GO is not changed by >the passage of the OO, assuming the OO doesn't >have sufficient mass to create a significant >gravitational field of course ;-) I don't mention measuring the duration George. I merely asked if any process in the experiment could have possibly altered the amount of time occupied by the orbit. > >And vice versa as well. > >> 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? > >The duration measured by an observer will be changed >if the motion of that observer changes, that's a >different point. You cannot get away from the concept that something has to be measured to exist. The universe existed long before humans evolved George. > >However, regrdless of any of that, I would say >it was a very poor reference. First of all your >perfect orbit is entirely hypothetical, real >orbits vary far more than real clocks. Second, >to do any sort of scientific work, I want the >clock portable so that I can set it up beside >the experiment to be measured. Using an orbit >is somewhat impractical. You are now showing signs of desperation. Was it impractical to use the Earth's orbit as the standard of time for 10000 years? > >> 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. > >You can use the value of the duration of the >orbit say measured by the GO as your standard >i.e. your unit of duration, and then all other >durations can be given a numerical value which >is the ratio of their duration to that standard. No George, The value of the orbit is known to be sufficiently invariant during the experiment. For convenience it is assigned the value ONE. At no stage do we need to measure it or give it any other value. >So far that is just replacing the second with >an alternative and that's fine. However having >done that, you cannot assume the duration of >the orbit measured by the OO is also one unit, >you have to measure it and express it as a >multiple of the duration observed by the GO. >The result will be 1.00000000044, not 1.0 and >before you moan about defining the unit, no you >cannot define 1.00000000044 as being 1.0. ONE is ONE always, George....or do you think it becomes 'gamma'? > >>>> 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. > >If it contained INTERNAL inconsistencies then >that would be possible, you could show it was >not SELF-consistent. As long as you introduce >an EXTERNAL assumption which is inconsistent, >all you do is prove that the two are not >compatible. > >You have shown that if time is absolute then >GR is wrong and if GR is right then time is >not absolute, but we all know that anyway. >What you haven't done is show GR to be wrong, >only that it conflicts with your assumptions. I don't cplaim that time is absolute...more like 'universal'. We certainly don't know that time is not universal. 'Now' HERE is NOW everywhere. > >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 10 Aug 2005 19:41 On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 19:21:33 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >"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. Firstly it is very hard to obtain the rquired data....much of which is highly suspect anyway. Secondly, the fact that the typical curve sha[es can be produced is suficient reason to accept that most variable star curves are a direct consequence of c+v. Thirdly, I am still trying to work on important aspects of the program but cannot get on with it becaus I spend too much time trying to educate people like you. > >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: Paul B. Andersen on 11 Aug 2005 16:18 Henri Wilson wrote: > On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 19:21:33 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: > > >>"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. I suspect you know the reason, George. :-) The ballistic theory predicts that HD80715 should be a variable. It isn't. > Firstly it is very hard to obtain the rquired data....much of which is highly > suspect anyway. The fact is that I supplied all the required data. But the answer is interesting, and typical for Henri Wilson. Henri says he has calculated the light curve for HD80715 and must thus have had all the required data. But he won't show the result, because the required data are hard to get. And the data that are hard to get are suspect anyway - they are only measured data. > Secondly, the fact that the typical curve sha[es can be produced is suficient > reason to accept that most variable star curves are a direct consequence of > c+v. In other words, it doesn't matter that the predictions of the ballistic theory are wrong for a concrete binary with measured data, if Henri can dream up (in most cases physically impossible) data for a fantasy binary that will make the ballistic theory produce the observed light curve. Henry can infer what the parameters of the binary must be from the light curve, and the inferred data are not suspect. How can they be wrong? So he is inferring that a cepheid really is orbiting a 100+ solar masses invisible star. (Not a black hole - they don't exist in Henri's world!) > Thirdly, I am still trying to work on important aspects of the program but > cannot get on with it becaus I spend too much time trying to educate people > like you. In other words, Henri's program doesn't produce the desired result, and he is unable to find a way to make it do so. Paul
From: Henri Wilson on 11 Aug 2005 18:30
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 22:18:18 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 19:21:33 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >> wrote: >> >>>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. > >I suspect you know the reason, George. :-) > >The ballistic theory predicts that HD80715 >should be a variable. It isn't. > >> Firstly it is very hard to obtain the rquired data....much of which is highly >> suspect anyway. > >The fact is that I supplied all the required data. > >But the answer is interesting, and typical for Henri Wilson. >Henri says he has calculated the light curve for HD80715 >and must thus have had all the required data. >But he won't show the result, because the required >data are hard to get. And the data that are hard to get >are suspect anyway - they are only measured data. > >> Secondly, the fact that the typical curve sha[es can be produced is suficient >> reason to accept that most variable star curves are a direct consequence of >> c+v. > >In other words, it doesn't matter that the predictions of >the ballistic theory are wrong for a concrete binary with >measured data, if Henri can dream up (in most cases physically >impossible) data for a fantasy binary that will make the ballistic >theory produce the observed light curve. > >Henry can infer what the parameters of the binary must be >from the light curve, and the inferred data are not suspect. >How can they be wrong? Is this the same Paul Andersen who doesn't know that Asin(xt) +Asin(xt+180) = 0? >So he is inferring that a cepheid really is orbiting >a 100+ solar masses invisible star. >(Not a black hole - they don't exist in Henri's world!) This new category of star is called the WCH (Wilson, Cool, Heavy). Pass it on.... > >> Thirdly, I am still trying to work on important aspects of the program but >> cannot get on with it becaus I spend too much time trying to educate people >> like you. > >In other words, Henri's program doesn't produce the desired result, >and he is unable to find a way to make it do so. This IS the same Paul Andersen who doesn't believe that light moves at c wrt its source. Instead, all starlight in the universe moves at c wrt little planet Earth. .........The fairies are reponsible, you know :) > >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. |