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 19 Aug 2005 06:19 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:lls9g19ait8fpafhv5c75nh2v8uhjd1oqq(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:13:36 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: >>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >>news:fpe7g1lbsikchm6vjcatu0fhb0pcjt8dku(a)4ax.com... >>> On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 12:56:05 +0100, "George Dishman" >>> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> .... >>Don't be silly, you are free to post any >>opinions here. It is no more censorship >>than separating .research from .amateur, >>or sci.* from rec.*, it just saves wading >>through piles of stuff of no interest. > > If they wont publish anything that questions established theory, that is > 'censorship'. No, you are free to "publish anything that questions established theory" right here. You are not denied the ability to publish so you are not being censored. >>See the corrections in other posts, it should >>have been circa 1560 LY, sorry. > > .....and there is obviously a great deal of uncertainty. The standard error was quoted in Odysseus' post as 0.89 mas. >>>>> 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. >>>> >>>>Light emitted from the photosphere of a star is >>>>definitely "near a large mass", more so than in >>>>a lab on Earth ! >>> >>> That's right...but I have to live with that. >> >>Sure, but it means you cannot dismiss the lab >>results just because they are "near a large >>mass." or your stellar results are even less >>meaningful. > > I hope brightnes curves, analysed according to teh BaT, will throw some > light > on this whole topic. Not if you consider lab experiments invalid because they are "near a large mass", that would obviously also invalidate your stellar modelling results. You can't have it both ways Henri. >>> The way light leaves a star is very much part of the theory. >> >>They way it leaves the atom that emitted it >>must be the same as in the Sagnac effect. >>Thereafter the stellar plasma may affect it. >> >>> There is the question of thermal speeds of molecular sources and how >>> these >>> affect the speed of each photon...If there some kind of unification in >>> the >>> star's vicinity? >> >>That would occur after emission. Solve Sagnac >>first, then apply it to the plasma source, then >>consider what happens next. Once you have done >>that, you can model it. > > The error in your sagnac argument is that you assume the source is moving > directly towards the next mirror. Incorrect. If you note the diagrams I posted, it takes account of the angle of emission. As I have said many time, the velocity of the light is assumed to be the vector sum of the motion of the source plus a vector of magnitude 'c' and direction such that the light hits the detector. > That 'appears' true in the fibre optic > version...but is not in the four mirror one. > In fact, the source velocity is at right angles to the velocity vector of > the > next mirror . The direction of the light relative to the source or mirror is what matters and that is very close to 45 degrees for a four mirror system. > The path length difference is virtually independent of small changes in > light > speed. That is true, the path length difference is virtually the same in both theories and the measured time difference is found to be proportional to the path length difference which is why we can tell the speed of the light is c, not c + v*cos(a). You have written the bones of the simulations so if you doubt what I am saying, you can check it for yourself. I don't expect you to accept any of this on my authority, I am just giving you pointers that you can easily confirm with a little work. George
From: George Dishman on 19 Aug 2005 06:32 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:89r9g1l0gsevgpcbng54k2g4sp96plpmnu(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:06:11 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: >>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >>news:nkd7g1lilg34rebp4ekeggfp4akmufcs2r(a)4ax.com... >>> On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 12:48:12 +0100, "George Dishman" <snip uncommented text> >>>>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. >>> >>> Why would any sane person try to measure the length of >>> a rod in that way, George. >> >>The fact is that if you make two measurements, >>one parallel and one at an angle, you get two >>different values, two different "lengths in >>space" as you said above. >> >>When making measurements using an instrument >>moving relative to the thing being measured, >>this effect is unavoidable, only the rotation >>is in the x-t plane, not the x-y plane as in >>the analogy. (BTW, don't get misled, this is >>after the first order change due to the motion >>is accounted for.) > > That is wrong. > It is possible to measure both the length and speed of a moving rod > comparing > the times the end points pass two detectors. It is in deed. Now remember that axes are orthogonal and draw a spacetime diagram and you will see the consequence is what I said above. >>>>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". >>> >>> That is not related to our discussion. >> >>It is precisely the entire argument Henri, >>pure and simple. I thought you said you had >>always been aware of what I was saying. > > George, your problem is that you believe 'reality' is solely a human > construction. > You are under the impression that the fundamental dimensions we call space > and > time only exist in terms of human measurement. No Henri, that is where you are misunderstanding my views entirely. What I am saying is that the underlying structure of the universe is entirely independent of anything humans do or think, it is the _value_ of measurements which are defined in terms of where that reality is mapped onto human-defined axes that creates the variation. > It is true that the FORM of the universe as we know it is just a > psychological > construct.....but it still exists no matter how our minds choose to > portray it > 'internally'. Precisely, that is exactly what I am saying. > 'Lengths of space' and 'intervals of time' are natural phenomena. No they aren't, 'space' and 'time' or 'spacetime' is the natural phenomenon while 'Lengths of space' and 'intervals of time' are numbers read off rulers and clocks and those relate back to axes. Change the orientation of the axes and you change only the measurement, not the underlying reality. > We humans > try to devise accurate methods of comparing different lenths and times. We > have > been very successful...but by no means perfect. > > The fact that 'an orbit' - which obviously can have only ONE time > duration - That 'an orbit' can have only one time duration is an assumption that conflicts with GR and that is the one and only flaw in your so-called proof. Find a way to either prove that assumption or adjust your proof to remove it and you would succeed. If you are forced to include it as an assumption then you fail. > can be measured to have MORE than ONE duration, is evidence that our > measuring > techniques are faulty. > The same applies to rods. A rod has ONE length. It will not change no > matter > how it is moved. Different measured lengths signify inaccurate methods. Different components for x and y only signifies what you said before, that direction in space is not absolute. The same applies to z, y, z, t components in the spacetime of GR. George
From: Henri Wilson on 19 Aug 2005 09:20 On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 11:32:01 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >news:89r9g1l0gsevgpcbng54k2g4sp96plpmnu(a)4ax.com... >> On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:06:11 +0100, "George Dishman" >> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >> wrote: >>>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >>>news:nkd7g1lilg34rebp4ekeggfp4akmufcs2r(a)4ax.com... >>>> On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 12:48:12 +0100, "George Dishman" > ><snip uncommented text> > >>>>>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. >>>> >>>> Why would any sane person try to measure the length of >>>> a rod in that way, George. >>> >>>The fact is that if you make two measurements, >>>one parallel and one at an angle, you get two >>>different values, two different "lengths in >>>space" as you said above. >>> >>>When making measurements using an instrument >>>moving relative to the thing being measured, >>>this effect is unavoidable, only the rotation >>>is in the x-t plane, not the x-y plane as in >>>the analogy. (BTW, don't get misled, this is >>>after the first order change due to the motion >>>is accounted for.) >> >> That is wrong. >> It is possible to measure both the length and speed of a moving rod >> comparing >> the times the end points pass two detectors. > >It is in deed. Now remember that axes are >orthogonal and draw a spacetime diagram and >you will see the consequence is what I said >above. The length will be the same irrespective of the speed. >>>> >>>> That is not related to our discussion. >>> >>>It is precisely the entire argument Henri, >>>pure and simple. I thought you said you had >>>always been aware of what I was saying. >> >> George, your problem is that you believe 'reality' is solely a human >> construction. >> You are under the impression that the fundamental dimensions we call space >> and >> time only exist in terms of human measurement. > >No Henri, that is where you are misunderstanding >my views entirely. What I am saying is that the >underlying structure of the universe is entirely >independent of anything humans do or think, it >is the _value_ of measurements which are defined >in terms of where that reality is mapped onto >human-defined axes that creates the variation. > >> It is true that the FORM of the universe as we know it is just a >> psychological >> construct.....but it still exists no matter how our minds choose to >> portray it >> 'internally'. > >Precisely, that is exactly what I am saying. > >> 'Lengths of space' and 'intervals of time' are natural phenomena. > >No they aren't, 'space' and 'time' or 'spacetime' >is the natural phenomenon while 'Lengths of space' >and 'intervals of time' are numbers read off >rulers and clocks and those relate back to axes. >Change the orientation of the axes and you change >only the measurement, not the underlying reality. ...but George, a 'length of space' can be specified very easily without being measured. Just take a piece of wood......that defines a length of space. It doesn't need a number to be a 'length of space'.. A rigid rod defines a 'fixed length of space'. An orbit defines a 'fixed length of time'. >> We humans >> try to devise accurate methods of comparing different lenths and times. We >> have >> been very successful...but by no means perfect. >> >> The fact that 'an orbit' - which obviously can have only ONE time >> duration - > >That 'an orbit' can have only one time duration is >an assumption that conflicts with GR and that is the >one and only flaw in your so-called proof. George, it is my intention to conflict with GR. >Find a way >to either prove that assumption or adjust your proof >to remove it and you would succeed. If you are forced >to include it as an assumption then you fail. George, when are you going to accept that observer behavior cannot affect the observed? The orbit is the same duration no matter who looks at it. It isn't going to change just because an observer happens to fire his rocket engine. >> can be measured to have MORE than ONE duration, is evidence that our >> measuring >> techniques are faulty. >> The same applies to rods. A rod has ONE length. It will not change no >> matter >> how it is moved. Different measured lengths signify inaccurate methods. > >Different components for x and y only signifies >what you said before, that direction in space >is not absolute. The same applies to z, y, z, t >components in the spacetime of GR. 't' doesn't have a spatial direction. 'ct' does...."the distance light will move from its source in time 't', in a perfect vacuum". >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 19 Aug 2005 09:23 On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 11:12:44 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 12:49:56 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >> <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >> >>>>Do you think neutron stars are formed 'instantatly'? >>>> >>>>You are the one who claims that there is about four times more dark matter in >>>>the universe than hot stuff. >>>>The WCH answers the questions. >>>>It is small, cool and heavy....and named after H. Wilson, the discoverer. >>>> >>>>When it orbits a star, the star wobbles and emits light according to the BaT. >>>>We see the effect in the form of a brightness variation. This can happen in a >>>>few hours......Lyrae stars. >>>> >>>>Pulsars could be two WCHs in very close orbit. >>>> >>>>Androcles thinks all WCHs are just big planets....and that might be one way of >>>>looking at them.....except that these are much, much more dense than ordinary >>>>planets. >>>> >>>>Please don't try to publish this idea in your name Paul. There is evidence on >>>>google. >>> >>>OK. I won't. :-) >>> >>>BTW, is your invisible WCH blue like a fairy or pink like an elephant? >> >> >> For inclusion in your plagiarized paper, I hereby give permission for you to >> state that they are pink with green spots. Some wear earings. >> > >Quite. >So we can conclude that the number of persons considering >the WCHs to be a serious proposition is zero. Anyone who can conclude that little planet Earth is the centre of the universe as far as all starlight is concerned should be able to conclude just about anything. > >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.
From: Henri Wilson on 19 Aug 2005 09:38
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 11:19:03 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >news:lls9g19ait8fpafhv5c75nh2v8uhjd1oqq(a)4ax.com... >> On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:13:36 +0100, "George Dishman" >> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >> If they wont publish anything that questions established theory, that is >> 'censorship'. > >No, you are free to "publish anything that questions >established theory" right here. You are not denied >the ability to publish so you are not being censored. except for the fact that is wont be published if it doesn't agree with the establishment. Seaking of publications, where, other than on a webpage, can one publish a computer program such as one of my animations? There must be a great many instances where an informative program will no longer be available if the web page vanishes. For instance, when I die, I doubt if my kids would keep my page going. Is there a decent way to permanently preserve Java applets, etc. >>>See the corrections in other posts, it should >>>have been circa 1560 LY, sorry. >> >> .....and there is obviously a great deal of uncertainty. > >The standard error was quoted in Odysseus' >post as 0.89 mas. ok. >>>>>Light emitted from the photosphere of a star is >>>>>definitely "near a large mass", more so than in >>>>>a lab on Earth ! >>>> >>>> That's right...but I have to live with that. >>> >>>Sure, but it means you cannot dismiss the lab >>>results just because they are "near a large >>>mass." or your stellar results are even less >>>meaningful. >> >> I hope brightnes curves, analysed according to teh BaT, will throw some >> light >> on this whole topic. > >Not if you consider lab experiments invalid >because they are "near a large mass", that >would obviously also invalidate your stellar >modelling results. You can't have it both >ways Henri. You make it sound so simple. > >>>> The way light leaves a star is very much part of the theory. >>> >>>They way it leaves the atom that emitted it >>>must be the same as in the Sagnac effect. >>>Thereafter the stellar plasma may affect it. >>> >>>> There is the question of thermal speeds of molecular sources and how >>>> these >>>> affect the speed of each photon...If there some kind of unification in >>>> the >>>> star's vicinity? >>> >>>That would occur after emission. Solve Sagnac >>>first, then apply it to the plasma source, then >>>consider what happens next. Once you have done >>>that, you can model it. >> >> The error in your sagnac argument is that you assume the source is moving >> directly towards the next mirror. > >Incorrect. If you note the diagrams I posted, >it takes account of the angle of emission. As >I have said many time, the velocity of the >light is assumed to be the vector sum of the >motion of the source plus a vector of magnitude >'c' and direction such that the light hits the >detector. > >> That 'appears' true in the fibre optic >> version...but is not in the four mirror one. >> In fact, the source velocity is at right angles to the velocity vector of >> the >> next mirror . > >The direction of the light relative to the >source or mirror is what matters and that is >very close to 45 degrees for a four mirror >system. No, it is 90 wrt the second mirror frame. .. > >> The path length difference is virtually independent of small changes in >> light >> speed. > >That is true, the path length difference is >virtually the same in both theories and the >measured time difference is found to be >proportional to the path length difference >which is why we can tell the speed of the >light is c, not c + v*cos(a). > >You have written the bones of the simulations >so if you doubt what I am saying, you can check >it for yourself. I don't expect you to accept >any of this on my authority, I am just giving >you pointers that you can easily confirm with >a little work. I am quite content to accept that sideways displacement of one beam will cause interference fringes to also move sideways..... as will a change in path length difference.. > >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. |