Speed of Light: A universal Constant?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Joan-Claude van Dirk Helps to Trivialize Special Relativity
Next: GOD=G_uv Measure your IQ in 30 seconds
From: Paul B. Andersen on 23 May 2005 10:21 Henri Wilson wrote: > On Fri, 20 May 2005 11:56:07 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> > wrote: > > >>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>news:mi4q81hbukgmpq5m8bmp59s1knmpftcluv(a)4ax.com: >>>This means that according to SR and LET, clocks appear to run slow >>>whether they are approaching OR receding. >> >>I understand this. It is a well known, observable effect. > > > HoHoHo Hahahah! > > It has never been observed. All Henri has to do to make facts go away is to deny their existence. :-) Paul
From: Henri Wilson on 23 May 2005 19:26 On Mon, 23 May 2005 02:00:06 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote: >In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson) ><H@> > wrote >>>Emissive theory drops postulate [1], and substitutes for [2] >>> >>>[2'] Lightspeed c is relative to the source. >>> >>>SR uses >>> >>>[2"] Lightspeed is c everywhere. >>> >>>and modifies [3], twisting space and time to make [2"] fit. While >>>SR is bizarre, the Universe so far has validated it. >> >> so far....but it hasn't really been tested directly. > >And BaT has? Yes Ghost. Using variable stars. > >>>The variance of g from the top of a 500m tower to its base would >>>be on the order of about .1%, if I'm not mistaken. >> >> Assume constant g for this experiment Ghost. >> > >I merely point out the presumed error. I'm not entirely sure >I'm correct here -- it could be .1% or .0001%, depending >on whether one assumes a g variance of 1/d or 1/d^2. I'd >have to work it out. Don't worry about it Ghost. Assume it is constant for the purpose of this exercise. It is actually 1/d^2 for a homogeneous sphere (Newton). >>>Does this mean he's going to actually fund his triple-rocket >>>experiment? ;-) >> >> The Chinese are going to do it. >> They read all my messages. >> > >And which government ministry would that be, out of curiosity? I don't care which. > >[.sigsnip] 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 23 May 2005 20:45 On Mon, 23 May 2005 02:35:16 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:5k12915fcf7ocnjsrv6l6m1q5vpbrq64j9(a)4ax.com: > >>>I am saying that Time of flight light speed determination will suffice. >>>We don't need a rigorous 'one way light speed' determination in order to >>>demonstrate that the speed of the photons is not changed by the speed of >>>the source. >> >> You cannot get it into your head that a one way TOFLS experiment >> involves two clocks. They can only be synchronized by sendoing a light >> signal in the reverse direction....whiuch makes such an experiment a >> TWLS one. >> >> > >I don't care if it is a TWLS experiment. I am not concerned with motion or >not motion of the aether. I am concerned with whether or not photons from >my captive moving source travel at c or c'=c+/-v. For that determination, >I don't need to measure the speed of light absolutely, I just need to >compare it with speed measured as the source speed is changed. true... but we have been through this and you cannot get anywhere near the required resolution and accuracy unless you go interplanetary at least. > > >.... >>>Science doesn't try to hid these things, it puts them out in the open so >>>that others can run better experiments. >> >> I invite you to perform an experiment in which a pulse of light is >> sent towards Andromeda. I am 100% certain that its speed will not be >> determined as being c wrt every object in the galaxy, when measured in >> the source frame. >> >> Why do SRians close their eyes to this obvious fact? >> > >We have discussed this before. We disagree on the results. I don't know why >because you have accepted that each object in Andromeda will see a >different doppler shift on the incoming photons. that's right. The doppler shift will be due to the arrival speed (c+v). >>>There is no logic in asking what the size of a photon is unless you >define >>>'size' and say how you will relate it to photons. >>> >>>'Size' is defined by how you measure things. >> >> Size exists without measurement. > >Let me see you determine the size of something without measuring it in some >way. We just had this argument with regard to 'movement'. It exists without measurement but its relative magnitude can only be defined with measurements. > >.... >>>There is NO other useful meaning of the word 'size' as applied to >photons. >> >> How about length and effective cross section? > >Tell me hou you want to measure those and we will add them to the >properties of a photon. > >Will that make you happy? Consider this. You are out in space with a very fine laser. You use it to emit a very short pulse of light, say 3E-10 secs. Its length is 1 cm...... and presumably it retains that length as it propagates through space. How many photons make up that pulse, if any? They can obviously be no longer than 1 cm and their cross section can be no broader than the laser exit. What happens to ech photon as the beam diverges? It's all a little hard to imagine eh? Frankly, I don't think photons exist. > >.... >>>Find a way to measure something that you want to call size, and that >>>will then be 'size' once you can convince others to use the same >>>measure. >> >> the is nothing wrong with expressing photon 'size' in terms of our >> standard units. > >Of course not. I never said there was. I said the term 'size' is >meaningless wrt photons unless you specify how you wish to measure size. I don't agree >> It doesn't require any 'case'. ...but it DOES require a connection to an >> object such as a spaceship. > >In that case, the spaceship is the case. OK > >>>> Objects in free fall don't have a force acting on them according to >>>> GR. >>> >>>You are wrong. >> >> Ask any DHR. > >What is a DHR? a 'die hard relativist' > >>> >>>Objects in free fall can not tell that they have a force acting upon them >>>without looking outside. >> >> What if there is nothing outside? > >Then there is no way to tell if they have a force acting uniformly upon >them. Even if they looked outside at various objects they would not learn anything about their own state. > >.... > > >>>> I can give an example where that doesn't apply. >>>> >>>> Drop an object from a high tower. >>> >>>It is accelerating wrt your Frame of Reference. >>> >>>> As it passes you, you jump off your >>>> own lower tower. >>> >>>You take your frame of reference with you. The object continues to >>>accelerate wrt your FoR. You accelerate wrt the tower's FoR (and the >>>ground, which shares the towers FoR). >> >> Not according to GR. > >In what way? > >>>> Both you and the object are now in the same state of free fall >>> >>>Not the same state. >> >> How can one 'free fall' differ from another at the same location? > >They are falling at different velocities. yes maybe it can happen. > >>>You are each in free fall. You each experience the same force of gravity >>>and accelerate at the same rate. But you do not have the same velocity. >>> It is moving at a constant velocity wrt you. > >> Yes OK but... >> According to GR, there is no 'force of gravity'. >> I think you should start arguing with relativists, not someone like me. > >GR does not say there is NO force of gravity, but that gravity can be >looked upon as a curvature of space. Those are quite different things. Its equivalent to saying the sun revolves around the Earth. >>>You are now in the same inertial frame that it is because your velocity >>>wrt it is constant. But you are not moving at the same velocity that it >>>is moving. >> >> Yes you are right. I appreciate that point but it is not really what I >> was trying to emphasize. > >I am afraid I can not speak to what you were trying to emphasize, only to >what you said. I'm not sure myself, now. > >>>Neither of you is in an inertial frame wrt the earth. > >> I think GR says they both are. How can a frame be both inertial and >> non-inertial? It should not depend on the observer, surely. > >Things in the same inertial frame have a fixed velocity wrt each other. But in SR, frames with different velocities define different inertial frames. > >> Does the Earth constitute an inertial frame? > >It does wrt anything that is moving at a constant velocity wrt the earth. Whether a frame is inertial or not doesn't depend on any observers. > >> If a frame is inertial, would it not be inertial wrt all other inertial >> frames? > >Of course not. Being in the same inertial frame is like being on the same >train. Are all trains the same? No I think you are getting all of this completely wrong. No good asking the Ghost. He wouldn't know either. You should start a new thread to bring in the DHRs. say, WHAT DEFINES AN INERTIAL FRAME? >> ********** >> Incidentally, I have a 'theory' that says if a massive object is forced >> to accelerate faster than the local g, it will produce an anti-gravity >> effect and reduce that local g. > >How 'massive' must the object be? 'massive' means it has mass. > >> It works with charge, why not gravity. > >There are positive and negative charges. There are no negative gravities. > >> What do you think? > >Show me the math. Then show me an experiment that you propose to use to >test it. >******* >I think you are pulling my leg. I said it was a 'theory'. It is something that has never been tried. Maybe it will work. > > > >>>> >>>> Postulates are NOT truths. Please don't refer to them as though they >>>> are. >>> >>>Postulates are assumed to be truths. Predictions are made based upon >>>them. If the predictions prove to be correct, the postulates stand until >>>they are falsified. The postulates of SR stand. >> >> That is correct. In the case of SR, no postulate has been directly >> verified. > >No prediction of SR has been shown to be false. SR stands until its >predictions are falsified. Until recently, the means were not available to test it directly. that is why it has survived for 100 years. >>>If you are in free fall in orbit around the earth, you are not in an >>>inertial state wrt the earth. You are constantly accelerating. Your >>>accelerometer will not show the acceleration, however. In an orbit, you >>>can define your FoR as the ship, for a while. >> >> It is inertial when free falling in orbit. > >inertial wrt what? It is either inertial or it isn't. > >What are the constituents of your inertial system? >They are everything that is moving with a constant velocity wrt you. No. Start that new thread. > >The contents of the ship constitute an inertial system. The ship is NOT in >the earths inertial system however. > >>>If you are in free fall, falling from orbit, you are not in an intertial >>>state wrt the earth. Your accelerometer will not show the acceleration, >>>however. You are in an inertial frame wrt your ship, but wrt that frame, >>>you are about to get hit by a huge planet that is in accelerated motion >>>toward you. And your accelerometer isn't going to show you a thing about >>>that. >> >> This is where this whole approach to gravitational force becomes >> farcical. > >It is your understanding that is faulty. > >> It is plainly obvious that a massive object such as the Earth is not >> being accelerated towards you at g by your very meagre gravitational >> potential. >> >> You are the one accelerating. >> >> Yet your accelerator reads zero and GR says you are inertial. > >If you think that a zero reading means you are inertial then you don't >understand what the accelerometer does. It only means that the >accelerometer and its immediate surrounds constitute an inertial system. It >says nothing about other objectes in the immediate area or the rest of the >universe. Of course not. But likewise they don't determine whether your frame is inertial or not. > >.... > > >>>The accelerometer can't tell you why it is measuring 1 g. >> >> No, but if it reads zero, it tells you you are inertial. > >An inertial system is those objects that are moving at a constant velocity >wrt each other. It says nothing about any other objects. start that new thread. Do you want me to do it? >.... >>>>>Perhaps your confusion over the distinction between SR and GR is >>>>>leading you astray. >>>> >>>> Yours is. >>> >>>We were talking of SR. You brought in a distorted view of GR and called >>>it SR. >> >> The general opinion is that SR is a limited case of GR.....GR without >> gravity. > >Not without gravity, but without taking into account the GR predicted >distortion of space caused by mass. ...of course, there isn't any. > >.... > > >>>You act like this is against some rule. You sound like you think >>>Einstein 'cheated' when he did this. >> >> He did. >> >>> >>>Clue: it isn't against the rules. >> >> He knew that in his lifetime, nobody could possibly measure or compare >> OWLS. > >You may be luckier. Your claims about BaT may be tested in your lifetime. It has been,,quite successfully. > >.... > >>>> If you again consider my example above regarding two objects falling >>>> from different heights. >>>> They are both inertial. ...yet the distance between them is >>>> increasing.. What is going on? >>> >>>They are each interial in their own framwork. They are not inertial wrt >>>each other. >> >> You said before that they were. > >I was right the first time. I started answering your article from the end, >working my way back to the beginning. I didn't correct this part later. > >>>They don't share the same frame work unless they started their fall at >>>the same time in the same uniform g field. > >I should have said 'they don't share the same frame work unless they have a >constant velocity wrt each other.' > >Two objects following different paths toward the center of the earth would, >not have an exactly constant velocity. So, technically they are not really >inertial wrt each other, but for all practical purposes, they DO share an >inertial FoR. No! > >.... > >>>I do not worship at the SRian or the BaTer altar. I am examining both >>>with an open mind. >> >> No you are not. You are continually following the standard line. > >If I took the BaT side, then there would be nothing to discuss with you. That's true. I actually like arguing with you bz because, unlike the rest here, you DO ask genuinely intelligent questions. It helps me develop my theory. >>>Science does not need to explain WHY the velocity of c is constant as >>>measured by all observers. >> >> Yes it does. > >Science does not answer why questions. > >Religion answers why questions. Those that insist on answers to why >questions are worshipers. Philosophy identifies questions but doesn't even try to answer them. Physics tries to explain how, why and even when...but doesn't always succeed. Religion makes up any story that will keep its customers rolling in. > >>>> It cannot, without resorting to LET. >>> >>>You see it as LET. That does not make it so. >> >> Only an absolute property of the space between any two points could >> cause the light speed between those points to be constant and >> independent of observer speed. > >That is your theory. What else could be responsible? > >> That is aether theory. >> A postulate wont do it. > >Postulates don't do anything. Theories don't do anything. > >>>>>Don't allow your desire to stay out of the herd to make you delude >>>>>yourself either. >>>> >>>> There are enough flaws in Einsteinian relativity for a five yo kids to >>>> conclude it cannot be correct. >>> >>>Some of the best minds on earth have studied his theories. >> >> How come none of these great minds has been good enough to realise that >> a vertical light beam remains vertical in all frames. > >Perhaps because it doesn't. See my movingframe.exe animation or just draw it on paper. > >>>Doesn't it amaze you that no one has succeeded in invalidating it >> >> variable star data invalidates it > >So far, I have not been convinced that the data really invalidates it. > >> ..... but nobody has the courage to say >> so. They would lose his job if they did. > >If the data were incontrovertable then the vision of a possible Nobel prize >would overcome the fear of losing a job. If I tried to publish my program along with its findings nobody would even look at it. It doesn't conform!!!] 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 23 May 2005 20:46 On Mon, 23 May 2005 16:21:31 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Fri, 20 May 2005 11:56:07 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> >> wrote: >> >> >>>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>>news:mi4q81hbukgmpq5m8bmp59s1knmpftcluv(a)4ax.com: >>>>This means that according to SR and LET, clocks appear to run slow >>>>whether they are approaching OR receding. >>> >>>I understand this. It is a well known, observable effect. >> >> >> HoHoHo Hahahah! >> >> It has never been observed. > >All Henri has to do to make facts go away >is to deny their existence. :-) > >Paul Paul, please do something useful and explain to bz what an inertial frame is. 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 24 May 2005 10:48
Henri Wilson wrote: > On Mon, 23 May 2005 02:00:06 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine > <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote: > > >>In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson) >><H@> >>wrote > > >>>>Emissive theory drops postulate [1], and substitutes for [2] >>>> >>>>[2'] Lightspeed c is relative to the source. >>>> >>>>SR uses >>>> >>>>[2"] Lightspeed is c everywhere. >>>> >>>>and modifies [3], twisting space and time to make [2"] fit. While >>>>SR is bizarre, the Universe so far has validated it. >>> >>>so far....but it hasn't really been tested directly. >> >>And BaT has? > > > > Yes Ghost. > > Using variable stars. Henri Wilson has shown that the BaT predicts that the binary HD80715 should be variable. It isn't. So for once Henri is right. The BaT is tested quite directly. It failed the test and is thus falsified. Henri Wilson has also tested the BaT on Algol. The result was that he proved that the parameters for the variable had to be wildly different from their real values if the BaT should correctly predict the light curve. So Algol is another binary known to falsify the BaT. The fact is that the BaT does not predict the light curve of a single binary correctly. Henri has realized this, that's why he doesn't dare to enter the data for any of the thousands of known binaries into his program. And he is of course regretting bitterly that he ever tested the BaT using real, measured data. He has ever since desperately tried to explain why the BaT doesn't predict what his program says it predicts. Those "explanations" are however quite entertaining. :-) Paul |