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 09:51 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:ldmbg1t874e8te0aiodjthqhb4lre6hdlv(a)4ax.com... > 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. If you just repeat your preconceptions, you won't learn and your arguments will always be directed at irrelevant strawmen. Try doing as I suggested. >>>>> 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. No, a region of space can be defined but the length of that region is a measurement. > Just take a piece of wood......that defines a length of space. > > It doesn't need a number to be a 'length of space'.. Yes it does, otherwise it is just "some space". > A rigid rod defines a 'fixed length of space'. > An orbit defines a 'fixed length of time'. Same problem Henri, you are just repeating preconception that are untrue in GR. Use those asumptions in your proof and it is invalid. >>> 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. My mistake, I thought you were trying to prove it wrong. If all you are doing is say you don't like it, I think we have all got that message. >>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? When are you going to start litening to what I say instead of inventing alternatives? Look back through this post and see if you can find why I say that. > 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. Inventing more things for me to say Henri? At no time did I suggest 't' was spatial. George
From: George Dishman on 19 Aug 2005 10:04 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:vcnbg196upjg88gg2ostf76d94eurs4eem(a)4ax.com... > 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. This group is unmoderated, nobody can stop you posting. In effect you are the publisher, when you press the send button that's it. > 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. I guess you could buy some permanent space but you would still have to rely on the supplier staying in business. Google archives all posts at the moment though how long that might last must be doubtful given the volume of traffic. Beyond that, paying to have a book published and donating copies to libraries would probably be the best long term approach. >>> 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. As a stand-alone point, it is. If the nearby mass doesn't invalidate stellar results, it cannot invalidate lab results either. >>> 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. .. I know but it is the motion of the light that we are calculating. Your point isn't wrong, just irrelevant. >>> 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 You already accepted that it didn't when I reminded you of your experience using a interferometer. Anyway, I am just making you aware that nobody who knows anything about interferometers will take that explanation seriously. > ..... as will a change in path length > difference.. That is correct, as would a speed change. What directly causes a change is relative phase and both path length difference and the speeds of the rays affect that. George
From: YBM on 19 Aug 2005 10:34 Henri Wilson wrote : > 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. Who did ressuscite the idea of a sun orbiting around a planet ? (see below) Henri Wilson wrote : > there is no reason why the 'planet' can't be bigger or heavier than the star.
From: Henri Wilson on 19 Aug 2005 17:59 On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 15:04:47 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >news:vcnbg196upjg88gg2ostf76d94eurs4eem(a)4ax.com... >> On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 11:19:03 +0100, "George Dishman" >> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >> doubt >> if my kids would keep my page going. Is there a decent way to permanently >> preserve Java applets, etc. > >I guess you could buy some permanent space but >you would still have to rely on the supplier >staying in business. Google archives all posts >at the moment though how long that might last >must be doubtful given the volume of traffic. >Beyond that, paying to have a book published >and donating copies to libraries would probably >be the best long term approach. I am not just thinking of my own work here. There are many others who compose computer simulations and animations. I'm suggesting that there needs to be a way of publishing such things, just as there is a way to publish written works in a journal. The publishing industry hasn't caught up with electronic methods. I cannot publish a computer animation in a book. I cannot even publish the source of my programs because there is a lot of code that doesn't show up. I can publish my own code and an .exe file...I can put all my programs on a CD, complete with Vbasic....but I cannot be certain that computers will be able to run that kind of thing in a hundred years. The same applies to Java. I have another program that animates a little invention I have patented. That cannot be included with the patent even though it demonstrates the working principle very efficiently. ...much better than a dozen diagrams. The Patent office hasn't cought up yet, either. The world needs an electronic 'live' publishing system. >>>> 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. > >As a stand-alone point, it is. If the nearby >mass doesn't invalidate stellar results, it >cannot invalidate lab results either. Physics isn't that easy. Other factors come into play. >>>> 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. .. > >I know but it is the motion of the light >that we are calculating. Your point isn't >wrong, just irrelevant. You would hope..... > >>>> 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 > >You already accepted that it didn't when I >reminded you of your experience using a >interferometer. Anyway, I am just making >you aware that nobody who knows anything >about interferometers will take that >explanation seriously. Sagnac is a special case. >> ..... as will a change in path length >> difference.. > >That is correct, as would a speed change. >What directly causes a change is relative >phase and both path length difference and >the speeds of the rays affect that. A small speed change would make no diference. > >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 20 Aug 2005 03:16
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:snkcg11v9h9e8ndjsvr563j486l3mhv9ae(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 15:04:47 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: .... > I am not just thinking of my own work here. There are many others who > compose > computer simulations and animations. I'm suggesting that there needs to be > a > way of publishing such things, just as there is a way to publish written > works > in a journal. The publishing industry hasn't caught up with electronic > methods. > > I cannot publish a computer animation in a book. > I cannot even publish the source of my programs because there is a lot of > code > that doesn't show up. > I can publish my own code and an .exe file...I can put all my programs on > a CD, > complete with Vbasic....but I cannot be certain that computers will be > able to > run that kind of thing in a hundred years. Even 10 years - compare VB6 and .net > The same applies to Java. Less so since it started with a standard whereas Basic always came in many flavours, but you are right, everything moves on. The best format is something that has lots of material that will be of interest. You could try capturing the screen animation into mpeg, films will be around for a very long time and even if mpeg becomes obsolete there will no doubt be converters produced to keep the content available. > I have another program that animates a little invention I have patented. > That > cannot be included with the patent even though it demonstrates the working > principle very efficiently. ...much better than a dozen diagrams. The > Patent > office hasn't cought up yet, either. > > The world needs an electronic 'live' publishing system. De facto, that is the web but it's not the pubishing side that's your problem, it is live archiving. >>> You make it sound so simple. >> >>As a stand-alone point, it is. If the nearby >>mass doesn't invalidate stellar results, it >>cannot invalidate lab results either. > > Physics isn't that easy. > Other factors come into play. Certainly, but if your starting point is invalid, other factors cannot redeem 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. .. >> >>I know but it is the motion of the light >>that we are calculating. Your point isn't >>wrong, just irrelevant. > > You would hope..... Unless you are going to worry about one mirror hitting the next, a somewhat unlikely event since they are fixed to the same table, it is irrelevant. >>> I am quite content to accept that sideways displacement of one >>> beam will cause interference fringes to also move sideways >> >>You already accepted that it didn't when I >>reminded you of your experience using a >>interferometer. Anyway, I am just making >>you aware that nobody who knows anything >>about interferometers will take that >>explanation seriously. > > Sagnac is a special case. In that it directly answers the question of the speed of light from a moving source, with the minimum of other factors, yes it is. >>> ..... as will a change in path length >>> difference.. >> >>That is correct, as would a speed change. >>What directly causes a change is relative >>phase and both path length difference and >>the speeds of the rays affect that. > > A small speed change would make no diference. The time to cover any distance is inversely proportional to the speed no matter how small. If the speed was the vector sum of c and v, Sagnac would give a null output. You know that is the result from your own simulation Henri. The only model that fits is if the speed is c in the lab frame for whatever reason. George |