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 22 Aug 2005 20:00 On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 21:26:11 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >news:plefg11qsoapu2dc2u7mgs53jjg5mt4o20(a)4ax.com... >> On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 14:51:53 +0100, "George Dishman" >> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >> wrote: >> George, can you not get away from the idea that 'lengths' have to be >> measured >> to be LENGTHS. > >I have to educate you somehow. If you split the >distance between two points into x and y >components, the values measured along those axes >depend on the orientation of the axes. You know >that Henri. It is splitting the distance into >components for measurement that creates the >variation. Why would you want to do that? Why not just measure the distance directly by placing a rod between the two points then checking the rod's length against a standard metre stick? > >> The length of space occupied by a rod does not change with speed. The >> proof is >> trivial...as I have pointed out many times. > >I haven't seen that one but all your proofs so >far have simply assumed 3-space and time are >absolute, you haven't offered any proofs at all, >just assertions. George, if you give a rod a short shove, does its length increase or decrease? Also see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/contraction.exe > >> Human attempts to compare a rod's length at different speeds may produce >> conflicting results because of flaws in the measuring techniques. > >No, they produce differing results because a >variation is inherent in the act of measuring. No George. A flaw may be inherent. It doesn't have to be. There are techniques now available for accurately measuring the lengths of moving rods. They should give the same answer as that for the rod at rest. >>>>>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. >> >> OK, call it a region of space if you want to include more than one spatial >> dimension.. > >That wasn't my intention, just that "a region" is >unquantified until you measure it. However, you >make a good point, it is fact that there is no >absolute direction in space that allows us to >trade off x and y components. True...but we can rotate a rod in any direction and know it will occupy the same absolute length of space. We can also construct three axes at 'right angles' even if we are hurtling along in a sealed space capsule. Interestingly, even though rotation direction is not absolute, rotation itself IS absolutely detectable. > >>>> 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". >> >> Like an orbit is just 'some time'. >> That's all it has to be for my experiment. The 'some' part is constant. > >Constant, but not single valued. You can trade >space and time by rotating the x-t axes just as >you can trade space-space by rotating the axes >in the x-y plane. It IS single valued....magnitude ONE. >>>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. >> >> You are repeating over and over that the orbit duration depends on who >> measures >> it. > >No, that's a nice strawman too. I am repeating that >the values measured along an axis depend on the >orientation of that axis. I really don't see the relevance of that argument. > >> I am trying to convince you that no matter what figure you out n the orbit >> duration, it will n ot change due to clock movement. > >And I am trying to get you to listen when I say I >have never disputed that each of the values is >constant, they are just not the same value. I know what you are claiming. I am also trying to tell you that it can have only one REAL value no matter how many values it is measured to have. Measurement differences indicate measurement errors, that's all. >> Define the orbit duration as 1, 100, 1000 or 1000000 'time units' and that >> value will not change due to any observer activity. > >Of course, but you are still trying to define >two different durations as the same 1, or 100 >or whatever number of units. You can't do that >and your attempt at a proof fails as a result. George, an orbit occupies a duration of time. We can try to place a figure on that duration with clocks. The clocks are calibrated according to another time duration standard...in our case it is still basically the Earth's rotation period (although we now have something slightly more accurate). So when you measure Jupiter's orbit with a clock, you are really comparing it with Earth's daily rotation. There has been and there will remain a constant ratio between the periods of Jupiter and the daily rotation of Earth. It is a dimensionless number around 4332.59. Any measured difference in that ratio reveals a measurement error. The obvious conclusion one must reach is that the clocks are not perfect. > >>>>>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. >> >> The 't' in GR is actually 'ct' (c=1) which has the dimensions of length. >> ... > >Don't try to tell me about relativity until you >learn it yourself Henri. You forgot that the sign >of the terms differs. The 't' part is "-ct^2" so >it would be 'ict' and have units of imaginary length >whatever that might mean. Time is not the same as >space and the equations always reflect that. I won't >waste my time educating you any more on this, if you >want to understand, study the subject. The time axis is made imaginary to keep it orthogonal. 'c' is actually just a scaling factor. This is a perfectly sound mathematical treatment...but it has no physical significance. Space and Time are not related in any way. >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 22 Aug 2005 20:04 On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 10:18:48 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 22:04:22 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >> <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >> >>>This conclusion is YOURS. >>> >>>I don't think you can find even another crank who would >>>agree that the invariance of light imply that there is >>>a preferred frame of reference - the Earth frame. >>>It is just too stupid. >> >> >> The idea is indeed very stupid...and it is obviously hard for you to accept the >> fact that such stupidity underlies your own belief system. >> You have ben fooled Paul, by the world's greater ever hoaxer. > >So you know the idea: >"the invariance of the speed of light > implies the existence of a preferred frame" >is stupid, but you claim it anyway? Don't lie. I do not claim any universal preferred frame exists. I am one of the few TRUE relativists here. I do however accept that local EM frames MAY be defineable and that these may influence light speed in their spheres of influence. >Your stupidity do indeed never cease to amaze. To be regarded a stupid by one who is obviously not of sound mind is indeed a compliment. > >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 22 Aug 2005 20:18 On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 20:02:34 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >news:9k1ig11oa73n2ln6mcgf2e72dl135d0efn(a)4ax.com... >> On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 11:46:50 +0100, "George Dishman" >> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >> wrote: >> >> Consider two stars in separate orbits with the same eccentricity and yaw. >> Let >> one have maximum velocity 0.0001c and the other 0.0002c. Orbit planes are >> both >> edge on. >> >> The second will have the same brightness curve as the first but at twice >> the >> distance. > >But the velocity curve will have double the >amplitude, that's why it is essential that >you put scales on the curves. The shapes are the most revealing feature but, yes, I can do that fairly easily. The maximum velocity and the zero are provided at present so it isn't hard to work out. The program gets bigger and bigger. >> Incidentally, if the orbit plane is rotated around an axis perpendicular >> to the >> LOS, the distance blows out by a simple cosine factor. > >I expected that for the same reason that stellar >masses are often only known as M * sin(I) Astronomers minds work in strange ways. >>>If you are comparing against the published curves, >>>you obviously need to use the same format. >> >> 'Apparent magnitude', the standard measure, is a log scale. 1 unit >> difference >> is a five fold increase in actual observed brightness. > >No, 5 magnitudes is 2 decades or 100 fold. > > mag_rel = 2.5 * log_10( I_1 / I_2 ) > >There are many pages on this, e.g.: > >http://www.noao.edu/outreach/nop/nophigh/steve6.html > >> I use a base e, with 1 representing zero brightness.....but that is OK >> becasue >> the height of the curves is pretty arbitrary anyway. > >That is my point though the height of these curves is >crucial. That equation is so close to what you are >doing already, it wouldn't take you any significant >effort to show the relative magnitude on the Y scale. I suppose I can now do that. I wanted to avoid negative values but it doesn't really matter. Trouble is, I will have to make assumptions about the star's actual luminosity. > >> No, I think my own presentation is out of phase. The starting point of the >> two >> curves is not the same. I am looking into it. > >If my intuition is correct, for a circular orbit >the mininimum of the intensity curve should >correspond to the velocity curve passing through >the midpoint and changing from blue shift to >red shift. I could be wrong though. > >It would be interesting to see what is predicted >by the conventional Cepheid model. I haven't >looked yet but will later if I get the time. I've just written a program to try to work out how an emission line would appear doppler shift according to the huff puff principle. Light from the middle, would have te maximum shift but light from the edges would have none....because the expansion would be normal to LOS. It turns out that there is a sinusoidal distribution of radial velocity with maximum at 45 degrees. This means that a spectral line would appear broadened from zero to maximum with maximum intensity at 1/root2 from the max. > >>>You need to put some limits on what "Very vague" >>>means before I can comment. Perhaps mail the >>>authors? >>> >>>> see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/georgeceph.jpg >>> >>>That's a much clearer picture than I got before, >>>nice. However, without the numbers on the axes it >>>doesn't tell me anything. Can you add them please. >> >> It's the shape that matters. > >No, it is correspondence of both shapes, both >amplitudes and the phase, otherwise you have >too many adjustable parameters for the result >to have any meaning. You should have all that >information produced by your model anyway, just >add the scales so everyone can see. It will take time but I can do it. > >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 23 Aug 2005 05:28 Henri Wilson wrote: > On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 10:18:48 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" > <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: > > >>Henri Wilson wrote: >> >>>On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 22:04:22 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >>><paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >>>>Listen Henry. >>>>YOU 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." >>>> >>>>I have never ever seen anyone but YOU conclude that >>>>the invariance of light imply that: >>>>"Little planet Earth is the centre of the Universe". >>>> >>>>This conclusion is YOURS. >>>> >>>>I don't think you can find even another crank who would >>>>agree that the invariance of light imply that there is >>>>a preferred frame of reference - the Earth frame. >>>>It is just too stupid. >>> >>> >>>The idea is indeed very stupid...and it is obviously hard for you to accept the >>>fact that such stupidity underlies your own belief system. >>>You have ben fooled Paul, by the world's greater ever hoaxer. >> >>So you know the idea: >>"the invariance of the speed of light >> implies the existence of a preferred frame" >>is stupid, but you claim it anyway? > > > Don't lie. I do not claim any universal preferred frame exists. > I am one of the few TRUE relativists here. Can't you read? I did NOT say that you claim a preferred frame exists. I said you claim that invariance of the speed of light _implies_ that a preferred frame exist. Which you do. And which is an idea so stupid that only a full blown crank like you can claim it. Paul
From: bz on 23 Aug 2005 07:51
H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:d3qkg1heo89vgbdej1stb6bu3c1tq5o708(a)4ax.com: > I've just written a program to try to work out how an emission line > would appear doppler shift according to the huff puff principle. > Light from the middle, would have te maximum shift but light from the > edges would have none....because the expansion would be normal to LOS. > It turns out that there is a sinusoidal distribution of radial velocity > with maximum at 45 degrees. > This means that a spectral line would appear broadened from zero to > maximum with maximum intensity at 1/root2 from the max. > aside from the fact that it is difficult to be sure when you are talking about maximum intensity of the line and when you are talking about maximum SHIFT of the line, I think you may have the right idea. You are, however, neglecting the star's rotation which will change that velocity distribution of the emitted photons. Rotation will make the contour map of velocity onto the stars surface 'interesting'. And will skew the shape of the broadened peak. -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap |