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: Henri Wilson on 13 Aug 2005 19:56 On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 15:36:54 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >news:h53lf1lafifeafvtubqiajj17ss7kcpf92(a)4ax.com... >> On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 19:49:52 +0100, "George Dishman" >> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >> wrote: >>>> >>>> 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?" > >No, it was "George, would you agree that ...". The >answer is that IMO your statement is incomplete. > >> I didn't request a value for that interval. > >The value of the interval, or "the amount of time >occupied by the orbit." as you put it later, is >what you are proposing as a standard for the >measurement of time, one unit. Correct. > >>>> 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. > >Duration IS a measurement Henri. Not in this case. There is no need to measure it because it is assigned the value of ONE time unit. >> I merely asked if any process in the experiment could have possibly >> altered the >> amount of time occupied by the orbit. > >And I explained that the "amount" is not the >same depending on how it is measured. You >are trying to wheasel your way around that >and hide the fact that your argument relies >not on the constancy of the amount but on >your assumption that the amount is the same >regardless of how it is measured. I quite understand your point. This is a philisophical issue. I say 'measurement' is a human invention. Time exists whether or not it is being measured . An orbit occupies a length of time.....which is invariant in our experiment. It doesn't need any measured value....so let's just give it the value ONE. >>>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. > >You said some time ago that Pythagoras was a >result of direction not being absolute. That >means that even though there is fixed distance >between two dots on a piece of paper, you get >different values for x and y components when >you make measurements using coordinate axes. >The direction of the axes is not absolute in >the x-y plane. > >The same is true of space and time, there is >a fixed interval between events but the time >and distance components vary depending on the >motion of the instruments measuring. for the >same reason, the direction of the t axis is >not absolute, it is tangent to the worldline >of the observing instrument. That is the kind of circular logic that SR relies on. The distance between two points is NOT dependent on observer motion. Just place a rod between them. Do you really believe that the rod physically changes when differnet observers move past it? The rod occupies a length of space. It can be used as an standard length reference by all. It doesn't need a measured value. > >> The universe existed long before humans evolved George. > >Spacetime and it's contents existed but there >was nobody around to measure it in coordinates >called "space" and "time". Time and space are not related in any way. You relativists confused reality with what you can observe using the limited speed of communication transfer. Can you not see that it is possible to simulate an instantaneous universe by correcting for light travel time. >>>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? > >Not as long as it was more accurate than any >clock, the resulting errors could not be seen. It was extremely accurate. ...and it was given the value ONE by definition. >>>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. > >Look up what "invariant" means, you meant >"unchanging". ...within the limits required for the experiment. > >> For convenience it is assigned the value ONE. > >There you go, trying to do your usual sleight >of hand. The value isn't "it", it is "they". >Two different values, both of which you want >to call "one". That doesn't work Henri, try >again. Nobody is trying to measure the orbit duration George. It is the reference standard...ONE. One Earth year is ONE EARTH YEAR no matter what kind of clock is used to measure it. If it is 1000000 ticks of one clock and 1000000000 ticks of another, it is still ONE year. It is the clocks which differ. > >> At no stage do we need to measure it or give it any other value. > >If you don't measure it, it doesn't have a >value. ONE!!!!! You don't have to measure a year to give it the value of ONE year, George. > >>>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'? > >Which amount are you calling "one" Henri, >there are two different values throughout >the experiment. They are both constant of >course. I think I have by now made my point clear. > >>>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'. > >However you want to express it, you cannot >assume something contrary to GR in order >to produce a falsification of GR. Assuming >both measured values will be the same does >that and that is why your argument is bogus. 'ticks per orbit' is a legitimate way to COMPARE clock rates ABSOLUTELY. >> We certainly don't know that time is not universal. >> 'Now' HERE is NOW everywhere. > >We know that spacetime intervals are invariant, >or in that sense as you said before, spacetime >is absolute (though coordinates aren't). >Splitting the interval into x, y, z and t >components depends on your choice of direction >for the axes, including the t axis. Like I said, space and time are not related physically, only mathematically. It is possible to plot the details of an event in 3space and1time. There can be no movement in such a plot...unless another time subdimension exists...which is of course true....otherwise there could be no movement in our own 4D + universe. Connect a rod between two points in space. Its length does not change no matter how it is moved. >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 13 Aug 2005 20:08 On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 01:52:36 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >news:p2snf1ha06860gi87rj6snq6iur1o3ouiq(a)4ax.com... >| >| This new category of star is called the WCH (Wilson, Cool, Heavy). >| >| Pass it on.... >| >Does the Paul Andersen that can't figure out v = x/t or >| >Asin(xt) +Asin(xt+180) = 0 have some black holes in his world? >| >Not surprising, I suppose. Observation means nothing to him. If >| >he can dream it then it exists. >| >What I'd like to know though is why a Wilson Can't Hack thinks he >| >needs a star that isn't in a tiny orbit at the focus of a 1/2 spiral? >| >| You still wont admit to your mistake will you A. > >What mistake? You think Kepler's equation is a mistake? No that one. >You think my ellipse centred on zero is a mistake? nor that >You think my 1,000,000 points to your pathetic 70,000 is a mistake? I can use 1000000000000 if I want to...but 20000 is usually plenty. >You think my finding V1493 Aql that you can't do is a mistake? I can do it easily. >You think my 0.9999 eccentricity that you can't do is a mistake? I can do it easily. ...but I don't particularly want to. ...no stars are in that kind of orbit. >You've got a strange idea of what a mistake is. > >What I'd like to know, though, is why a Wilson Can't Hack thinks he >needs a star that isn't in a tiny orbit at the focus of a 1/2 spiral? The mistake I refer to is the one where you tried to simulate SHM with a computer program that didn't use very small increments and didn't allow for the fact that the force reversed direction at the origin. That is why your curve 'overshot'. My ellipses don't. >| >| Henri produces beautiful and accurate ellipses. I sent you some more >| coordinates. (The first were for e=0.25 not 0.5). Would you like to >plot them. >| I'll send the full 20000 if you wnat them. > > >Send me Major axis 3.14159265/2 AU, eccentricity 0.99, 1,000,000 pts, >centred on (0,0). >If you can't I'll send them to you. I will send you a whole basic program that will produce ellipses with any required eccentricity. It will also give you the velocity and velocity angles for any number of equi-tempered points around the circumference. Who needs Kepler? >| > >| >Yes, of course. >| >So neither of you gave the other any clear signal to read, the posts >| >were >| >to raise the general noise level of the newsgroup. >| >| A, my ellipses produce the same results for Algol as your own >program....so if >| mine are wrong, so are yours. > >But you can't do V1493 Aql, you want atoms in space and you want >WCH's because your program is limited. WCHs are OK. As far as atoms in space are concerned, I will investigate whether the brightness curves we observe are all dependent of roughly the same amount of extinction to conform with BaT predictions. If they do, then I will have discovered something very important as well as establishing that the BaT is indeed correct and Einstein is WRONG. 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 13 Aug 2005 20:22 On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 15:42:40 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >news:7v3lf1pb883cb7375ue7kfqd5vdp45avlo(a)4ax.com... >> On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 19:21:33 +0100, "George Dishman" >>> >>>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. > >The data is not suspect, it is what it is, but >derived values such as eccentricity would need >to be recalculated if your alternative model >might influence their values. eccentricity determines the basic shapes of the curves. So does yaw angle. (my definintion: the angle between major axis and LOS). The main information I require is the phase relationships between radial velocity and brightness variation. That is not easy to get. I have it for RT Aur, nothing else. I can produce exactly the curves shown although the phasing between the two curves is different. The authors point out that the velocity curve is not particulalry accurate....but it IS the curve of a star in elliptical orbit, e=~0.2-0.3 As well, an accurate distance measurement is an advantage. >> 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. > >Nope, c+v is falsified by Sagnac and no amount >of matches would ever overcome that. Even without >Sagnac, your logic is inverted, to test the model >with binaries, you have to examine those that are >NOT variable. I taught you the logic in a recent >post. There are currently about ten threads here telling you why sagnac falsifies SR. > >> 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. > >Then by your own admission, you have not "already >done it." Let me know when you have. it is very informative as it is. > >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: "Androcles" <Androcles@ on 13 Aug 2005 23:12 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:k72tf1pggn8hf8slp76ho8vahit0c3j256(a)4ax.com... | On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 01:52:36 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote: | | > | >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message | >news:p2snf1ha06860gi87rj6snq6iur1o3ouiq(a)4ax.com... | | >| >| This new category of star is called the WCH (Wilson, Cool, Heavy). | >| >| Pass it on.... | >| >Does the Paul Andersen that can't figure out v = x/t or | >| >Asin(xt) +Asin(xt+180) = 0 have some black holes in his world? | >| >Not surprising, I suppose. Observation means nothing to him. If | >| >he can dream it then it exists. | >| >What I'd like to know though is why a Wilson Can't Hack thinks he | >| >needs a star that isn't in a tiny orbit at the focus of a 1/2 spiral? | >| | >| You still wont admit to your mistake will you A. | > | >What mistake? You think Kepler's equation is a mistake? | | No that one. | | >You think my ellipse centred on zero is a mistake? | | nor that | | >You think my 1,000,000 points to your pathetic 70,000 is a mistake? | | I can use 1000000000000 if I want to...but 20000 is usually plenty. | | >You think my finding V1493 Aql that you can't do is a mistake? | | I can do it easily. | | >You think my 0.9999 eccentricity that you can't do is a mistake? | | I can do it easily. ...but I don't particularly want to. ...no stars are in | that kind of orbit. | | >You've got a strange idea of what a mistake is. | > | >What I'd like to know, though, is why a Wilson Can't Hack thinks he | >needs a star that isn't in a tiny orbit at the focus of a 1/2 spiral? | | The mistake I refer to is the one where you tried to simulate SHM with a | computer program that didn't use very small increments and didn't allow for the | fact that the force reversed direction at the origin. | That is why your curve 'overshot'. | | My ellipses don't. | >| >| X= -015.7757 Y= 018.5597 | >| >| X= -005.7256 Y= 031.9233 | >| >| X= 005.3521 Y= 040.9819 Care to print out dx/dt, dy/dt, "your ellipses don't"? Care to complete a full spiral, "your ellipses don't"? You've got a strange idea what a mistake is. | >| | >| Henri produces beautiful and accurate ellipses. I sent you some more | >| coordinates. (The first were for e=0.25 not 0.5). Would you like to | >plot them. | >| I'll send the full 20000 if you wnat them. | > | > | >Send me Major axis 3.14159265/2 AU, eccentricity 0.99, 1,000,000 pts, | >centred on (0,0). | >If you can't I'll send them to you. | | I will send you a whole basic program that will produce ellipses with any | required eccentricity. It will also give you the velocity and velocity angles | for any number of equi-tempered points around the circumference. | | Who needs Kepler? I do. I need dx/dt = 0 at y= 0, dy/dt = 0 at x =0. Kepler gives me that. Wilson doesn't. You know where you can shove your whole basic program? Yeah, you guessed right. Who needs Wilson with his crackpot h-aether atoms in space, crackpot Lyraes going puff puff puff and his crackpot half-spirals? BaT is all yours, I don't wish to be associated with it. Androcles.
From: George Dishman on 14 Aug 2005 03:51
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:lb0tf1djo2k1phgbmf01lkoqb8gbq7657m(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 15:36:54 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: > >> >>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >>news:h53lf1lafifeafvtubqiajj17ss7kcpf92(a)4ax.com... >>> On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 19:49:52 +0100, "George Dishman" >>> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >>> wrote: > >>>>> >>>>> 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?" >> >>No, it was "George, would you agree that ...". The >>answer is that IMO your statement is incomplete. >> >>> I didn't request a value for that interval. >> >>The value of the interval, or "the amount of time >>occupied by the orbit." as you put it later, is >>what you are proposing as a standard for the >>measurement of time, one unit. > > Correct. > >> >>>>> 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. >> >>Duration IS a measurement Henri. > > Not in this case. > There is no need to measure it because it is assigned the value of ONE > time > unit. True but you miss the point, you can call it "one unit" but you haven't found out what "amount of time" the unit contains. Sorry about the odd wording but you seem to be having trouble grasping this. >>> I merely asked if any process in the experiment could have possibly >>> altered the amount of time occupied by the orbit. >> >>And I explained that the "amount" is not the >>same depending on how it is measured. You >>are trying to wheasel your way around that >>and hide the fact that your argument relies >>not on the constancy of the amount but on >>your assumption that the amount is the same >>regardless of how it is measured. > > I quite understand your point. This is a philisophical issue. No, it is a logical issue, you cannot use to different amount and use them both as the definition for the same unit. > I say 'measurement' is a human invention. Time exists whether or not it is > being measured . Right, but a unit of time (or anything) is a single amount, not two. > An orbit occupies a length of time No it doesn't, it occupies different "lengths of time" depending on which clock is measuring it. >.....which is invariant in our experiment. No, it isn't, each amount is constant, not invariant. Look up the words. > It > doesn't need any measured value....so let's just give it the value ONE. That should read "THEY don't need any measured value....so let's just give THEM the value ONE." >>> You cannot get away from the concept that something has to be measured >>> to >>> exist. >> >>You said some time ago that Pythagoras was a >>result of direction not being absolute. That >>means that even though there is fixed distance >>between two dots on a piece of paper, you get >>different values for x and y components when >>you make measurements using coordinate axes. >>The direction of the axes is not absolute in >>the x-y plane. >> >>The same is true of space and time, there is >>a fixed interval between events but the time >>and distance components vary depending on the >>motion of the instruments measuring. for the >>same reason, the direction of the t axis is >>not absolute, it is tangent to the worldline >>of the observing instrument. > > That is the kind of circular logic that SR relies on. > > The distance between two points is NOT dependent on observer motion. I didn't say it was, I said the x and y components vary with the orientation of the axes which you know is true. The distance between the dots is invariant under rotation of the axes and can be calculated using Pythoagoras. > Just place a rod between them. Yes, that measures the interval, not the x and y components of the interval. > Do you really believe that the rod physically changes when differnet > observers > move past it? Do you really read what I write before replying? > The rod occupies a length of space. It can be used as an standard length > reference by all. It doesn't need a measured value. > >> >>> The universe existed long before humans evolved George. >> >>Spacetime and it's contents existed but there >>was nobody around to measure it in coordinates >>called "space" and "time". > > Time and space are not related in any way. If you start with that postulate, you get LET instead of SR. > You relativists confused reality with what you can observe using the > limited > speed of communication transfer. > > Can you not see that it is possible to simulate an instantaneous universe > by > correcting for light travel time. No, SR is what you get _after_ correcting. >>Look up what "invariant" means, you meant >>"unchanging". > > ..within the limits required for the experiment. Let me repeat, the word you used does not mean what you think. >>>>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'? >> >>Which amount are you calling "one" Henri, >>there are two different values throughout >>the experiment. They are both constant of >>course. > > I think I have by now made my point clear. Your point has been clear from the first time you posted your argument. The point is wrong, you cannot assign the same unit to two different amounts. If you could it would solve a lot of probelms, just call both a pund and a kilogram "one mass unit" and all the conversion factor vanish. Wouldn't life be so much easier? > Connect a rod between two points in space. Its length does not change no > matter > how it is moved. Well if you move it, it wouldn't be between the points any more but I know what you mean. Let me restate it: "Its length does not change no matter how you rotate the x-y axes used to assign coordinates to its end-points." In the same way, the spacetime interval between two events does not vary if you rotate the x,y,z,t axes. George |