From: George Dishman on

"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
news:ns2tf1pjaglv62e0l8lvde8oa23vcct4at(a)4ax.com...
> 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.

Yes, that's why I mentioned it specifically.
I wanted you to understnd that I'm not going
to say you are wrong just because you come up
with a different value for the eccentricity
but I will say you are wrong if, for example,
the eccentricity derived from the spectroscopic
data does not match the value obtained from
the light curve when both are found using the
Ritzian model.

> 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.

OK, I understand your problem but your
distance for RT Aur was wrong so perhaps
you need to recalculate the eccentricity
etc. using the correct distance.

> 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.

Exactly. You have that now so can you still
get a match?

>>> 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.

The world is full of idiots. I guess they are
in s.p.r, I'm only reading sci.astro. I'm glad
you know better.

>>> 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.

It says nothing until you correct the distance,
but even a perfect match is irrelevant since
the simple Ritzian model is ruled out by Sagnac,
you need a better version that satisfies both.

George


From: Henri Wilson on
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 08:51:07 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

>
>"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:

>>>>>> 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.

Not so George.
I don't want or need to place a figure on the amount of time the orbit
contains.
All I want to know is that it does not change during the experiment.

>>>> 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
>two different amounts and use them both as the
>definition for the same unit.

Since when was the time contained in the orbit equal to TWO different
durations?
Two different orbits could have two different durations. One cannot.

>> 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.

I didn't mention the word 'measure', George.

The orbit represent ONE fixed duration.

>>.....which is invariant in our experiment.
>
>No, it isn't, each amount is constant, not
>invariant. Look up the words.

The number ONE doesn't vary no matter what you do with it..

>
>> 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."

We have one quantity, one orbit. Why refer to 'it' as 'them'?

>
>>>> 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.

I get 'true relativity'.

>
>> 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.

SR is what you get if you delude yourself into believing that a vertical beam
in one frame becomes a diagonal beam in another.

>>>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.

I meant both invariant and unchanging.


>>>>
>>>> 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?

you just don't get it George.

If I measure the length of a rod with a normal tape and get 1000 mm, then
measure it with another that has been used to tow cars, should I conclude that
the rod simultaneously occupies two different lengths of space?

>
>> 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.

Rotating the 't' axis makes no sense....unless there are three time
subdimensions.

>
>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
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 03:12:01 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote:

>
>"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:

>| >
>| >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.

For all practical purposes, the end error is far too small to affect the
outcome.

The reason I produce only half an ellipse is that computers don't like running
into x/0. There is an arctan involved. I probably COULD devise a way around it
but it would amount to the same thing.
Newton's gravitation equation ensures that the curve is a proper ellipse.

>| >|
>| >| 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.

Actually I give you: at y=0 dx/dt<0.00000001 * Vmax. That is good enough.

I don't need values at the ends of minor axis but I do know that dy/dt ->0
there. I looked at all the figures.

>You know where you can shove your whole basic program?
>Yeah, you guessed right.

Do I detect a touch of jealousy?
......You can't do it can you?
Keep trying. It has taken me about three years all up.

>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.

....but it is the same theory as yours.

>
>Androcles.


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
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 09:00:10 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

>
>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
>news:ns2tf1pjaglv62e0l8lvde8oa23vcct4at(a)4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 15:42:40 +0100, "George Dishman"
>> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk>
>> wrote:

>>>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.
>
>Yes, that's why I mentioned it specifically.
>I wanted you to understnd that I'm not going
>to say you are wrong just because you come up
>with a different value for the eccentricity
>but I will say you are wrong if, for example,
>the eccentricity derived from the spectroscopic
>data does not match the value obtained from
>the light curve when both are found using the
>Ritzian model.

I would certainly like to compare an observed brightness curve with radial
velocity.
The only decent one I have is that of RT Aurigae. ..and there is a big problem.

http://mb-soft.com/public2/cepheid.html

Its radial velocity curve is exactly that of a star orbiting with an
eccentricity of about 2.5-3.
The authors claim that the cepheid actually expands and contracts in exactly
the same manner. That is not impossible...but highly unlikely, in my mind.
I can also produce exactly the right shaped brightness curve, with the same
eccentricity.
The problem lies in the fact that the phase difference I predict is not the
same as the ones the authors claim.
However they seem to have gone to some trouble to make the velocity curve match
what they thought should be correct. They admit the velocity curve is vaguely
determined.
I say it is plain wrong.

If you can refer me to other data like this I would be grateful.

>> 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.
>
>OK, I understand your problem but your
>distance for RT Aur was wrong so perhaps
>you need to recalculate the eccentricity
>etc. using the correct distance.

I am not concerned with distance for various reasons.

>> 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.
>
>Exactly. You have that now so can you still
>get a match?

What is it?


>>>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.
>
>The world is full of idiots. I guess they are
>in s.p.r, I'm only reading sci.astro. I'm glad
>you know better.

I don't read sci.astro now...but I probably should.


>>>Then by your own admission, you have not "already
>>>done it." Let me know when you have.
>>
>> it is very informative as it is.
>
>It says nothing until you correct the distance,
>but even a perfect match is irrelevant since
>the simple Ritzian model is ruled out by Sagnac,
>you need a better version that satisfies both.

George, I am not interested in what happens in the lab or near a large mass.
I am only interested in what happns to light that is emitted at c wrt its
source and which subsequently travels through almost empty space.

>
>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

"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
news:6v3uf1pnt9o2oog7p0k3aoq1r8nc1lqshf(a)4ax.com...
> On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 08:51:07 +0100, "George Dishman"
> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:

>>"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:
>
>>>>>>> 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.

Much trimmed, I think you finally heard what
I have been saying.

>>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.
>
> Not so George.
> I don't want or need to place a figure on the amount of time the orbit
> contains.

I know you don't but a unit is a well defined
amount so you have no choice.

> All I want to know is that it does not change during the experiment.

No, what you want is for it to be single-valued.

> Since when was the time contained in the orbit equal to TWO different
> durations?

Since you tried to use it as a test of GR.
In GR it has two different durations.

> Two different orbits could have two different durations. One cannot.
...
> The orbit represent ONE fixed duration.
...
> We have one quantity, one orbit. Why refer to 'it' as 'them'?

Because in GR we have one orbit, two quantities.
Assuming it to be one quantity requires time to
be absolute which is contrary to GR and is the
entire basis of your argument.

>>>>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?
>
> you just don't get it George.
>
> If I measure the length of a rod with a normal tape and get 1000 mm, then
> measure it with another that has been used to tow cars, should I conclude
> that
> the rod simultaneously occupies two different lengths of space?

If you measure with a tape laid parallel to the
rod you get one value. If you measure with the
same tape but laid at an angle to the rod by
drawing a line perpendicular to the tape from
the end of the rod, you get a different value.
You are then trying to call the two different
lengths along the tape the same unit of length.
It doesn't matter if there are no mm marks along
the tape (no measurement in seconds) the amounts
of tape using the two methods differ so cannot
both be called "one unit".

George