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: The Ghost In The Machine on 21 Apr 2005 22:00 In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson) <H@> wrote on Thu, 21 Apr 2005 09:26:40 GMT <gkre6151md905na8ujn100ubcq8o53en91(a)4ax.com>: > On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 07:00:05 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine > <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote: > >>In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson) >><H@> >> wrote >>on Thu, 21 Apr 2005 05:18:16 GMT >><gede61pkm2go943qb09eh5oq4q85vjmp19(a)4ax.com>: >>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 15:00:05 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine >>> <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote: >>> >>>>In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson) >>>><H@> >>>> wrote >>>>on Tue, 19 Apr 2005 22:21:55 GMT >>>><trua61hacub6blube26g1halciji3qs8hb(a)4ax.com>: >>>>> On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 11:09:52 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >>>>> <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Henri Wilson wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Paul, here is a simple question, Please answer. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> S________r________c----------------------------------------------A >>>>>>> >>>>>>> S is a light source connected to a clock by a long rod r, which point towards >>>>>>> Andromeda. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> S emits a light pulse towards A. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Clock c intercepts the pulse and indicates ONE single travel time from S. It >>>>>>> also observes that the length of the pulse is the same as when emitted by S. >>>>>> >>>>>>All what can be read off clock c when the pulse is >>>>>>intercepted is the reading of the clock at that instant. >>>>>>To find the travel time, you must read off the clock c >>>>>>when the pulse is emitted. >>>>>>Please specify exactly how that's done. >>>>>>No hand-waving. >>>>> >>>>> Paul, I anticipated such a 'last resort' response from you. >>>>> >>>>> THE TRAVEL TIME IS QUITE UNIMPORTANT. >>>>> >>>>> What matters is that there is ONLY ONE TIME. >>>> >>>>Ah, but what does that reading represent? The clock, after all, >>>>is in a different reference frame from the stars of Andromeda. >>>>It conducts the measurement in that frame. >>> >>> Ghost, the pulse has ONE ONLY speed. >> >>Really? >> >>What speed would that be? > > Irrelevant Maybe. > >> >>In the BaT, depending on who's observing, that pulse has multiple >>speeds. > > Ghost, no matter what theory you use, the pulse passes > the clock only once...and at the same width as when emitted. Depends on the observer. I agree that it passes the clock once. However, depending on who is observing the event the pulse width will vary. For its part the clock will of course see the pulse in its own reference frame and report a width. > > Do you not agree? Yes or no please. > >> >>In SR, spacetime twists in a hyperbolic but mathematically consistent >>fashion, to give everyone lightspeed c. >> >>> It matters not what that speed is. >>> If it has ONE speed wrt one object, (in this case its source), it cannot >>> suddenly possess an infinite number of speeds. >> >>So who says it does? > > YOU PEOPLE. YOU SAY IT IS TRAVELING AT C WRT EVERY > OTHER OBJECT IN TYHE UNIVERSE. > > YOU MUST BE RAVING MAD!!! Then the Universe is, too. Here's the mathematical proof. Assume a 2-D universe for simplicity, and define the equation X_O^2 - c^2 * T_O^2 = 0. This is the usual light cone. What can we deduce regarding X_A^2 - c^2 * t_A^2 ? Well, since X_A = (X_O - v * T_O) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) = (X_O - v * T_O) * g T_A = (T_O - v * X_O/c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) = (T_O - v * X_O/c^2) * g we can happily (?) grind away: X_A^2 - c^2 * t_A^2 = (X_O - v * T_O)^2 * g^2 - c*2 * (T_O - v * X_O/c^2)^2 * g^2 = g^2 * ((X_O - v * T_O)^2 - (T_O*c - v * X_O/c)^2 ) = g^2 * (X_O^2 + v^2 * T_O^2 - 2 * v * X_O * T_O - c^2 * T_O^2 - v^2 * X_O^2 / c^2 + 2 * v * T_O * X_O) = g^2 * (X_O^2 + v^2 * T_O^2 - c^2 * T_O^2 - v^2 * X_O^2/c^2) = g^2 * (X_O^2 - c^2 * T_O^2 - (v^2/c^2) * (X_O^2 - c^2 * T_O^2) ) = g^2 * (0 - (v^2/c^2) * 0) = 0 > >> >>> >>> What was Einstein's first postulate again? >> >>That lightspeed has only one speed: c, >>no matter who measures it, or how it's measured. > > No Ghost, learn your SR. > That's the second postulate. In that case the first postulate was that all physical laws consistently apply everywhere, without change. That is, if my memory is correct. > >> >>SR twists time and space (through the Lorentz) to achieve this feat, >>and it's a strange twisting to those unused thereto -- but it >>is a consistent one. > > Time and space cannot be twisted by any stupid circular maths theory. You are correct. The theory merely tries to explain what is happening; math by itself does nothing interesting. And neither is the Universe trying to confuse you. :-) It just is. > >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> So I will ask again: how can the pulse be traveling at precisely c >>>>> relative to every object in Andromeda, when the experiment >>>>> conclusively shows it has only one speed? >>>> >>>>Yes. You don't understand the Lorentz. >>> >>> I don't recognize Lorentz. It is based on the existence >>> of an aether. It is fundamentally flawed. (A similar law >>> might hold for aspects of charged particles however) >>> A vertical beam in one frame does not become a diagonal >>> beam in another. It remains vertical. >> >>Oh no? >> >>Using the Galilean transform, a vertical beam most certainly >>does not stay vertical. If we assume a tri-coordinate >>system (x,y,t) for the purposes of this problem and define >>a horizontal beam as a beam such that x_O = 0 (for all y and t), >>then, in A-space, we end up with >> >>x_A = x_O - v * t_O >>y_A = y_O >>t_A = t_O >> >>Is x_A constant? No. The beam is no longer vertical. >> >>SR predicts similar results so don't worry overly much about it. > > Ghost, you are showing your ignorance. Even Paul Andersen agrees that a > vertical beam remains vertical in all frames. A vertical beam of what? > > see my programs: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/vertical.exe > and: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/movingframe.exe > >> >>> >>>> >>>>Let (x_O,y_O,z_O,t_O) be in space O, where >>>>x_O^2+y_O^2+z_O^2-c^2*t_O^2 = 0. >>>>Basically, this is a hypercone conic surface (or a lightcone surface, >>>>if one prefers). An alternative interpretation is that it's >>>>the locus of a photon which originated at the origin. >>>> >>>>The Lorentz transformation between coordinate systems A and O >>>>is of course >>>> >>>>x_A = (x_O - v * t_O) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) >>>>y_A = y_O >>>>z_A = z_O >>>>t_A = (t_O - v * x_O/c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) >>>> >>>>It turns out that, if >>>> >>>>x_O^2+y_O^2+z_O^2-c^2*t_O^2 = 0, then >>>>x_A^2+y_A^2+z_A^2-c^2*t_A^2 = 0 as well. >>>> >>>>I'd have to find my post proving the above but it's not >>>>that difficult to prove, mathematically. The corollary, >>>>of course, is that lightspeed under this transform is >>>>c everywhere. Is the Universe required to be Euclidean? :-) >>> >>> You are merely using circular maths. >> >>Perhaps. They are, at least, consistent. > > Circular maths is always consistent. > What does that prove? Nothing. Did you have an experiment in mind that would prove BaT? I do like your triple-probe, though I don't see much point. > >> >>> >>>> >>>>But the real proof is in the experimentation, which makes >>>>this worth diddly-squat without at least some experimental >>>>evidence to back it up. However, there's a number of >>>>experiments that suggest that lightspeed *is* in fact >>>>c everywhere, regardless of motion or gravitation. >>> >>> No there are not. Unless OWLS from a moving source is directly >>> measured you cannot make such claims. >> >>I said *suggest*. There *is no proof* that lightspeed is >>c everywhere -- merely suggestions. Very strong suggestions, >>though. > > Where? > I have never seen any. Ah yes. So OK...where's the nullpoint of the Universe, then? Can you and kenseto agree on an experimental method to find it? > >> >>> >>>> >>>>Your dual-probe moon experiment might corroborate SR and GR, >>>>but that's about it. >>> >>> It will prove them wrong. >> >>Sure it will. Care to put money behind it? Like maybe a >>few hundred million dollars worth? >> >>That's about what it would cost to launch two (or maybe several) >>spaceprobes with well-characterized repeaters. > > It would cost very little if done in conjunction with other experiments. > > I'm sure the Chinese or Ruskies will perform this type > of experiment soon. I don't doubt they watch NGs like > this for good ideas like mine. If nothing else the experiment, done correctly, will refine the accuracy of SR/GR, though again I see not much point; Gravity Probe B in particular should be better at it. > >> >>> >>>> >>>>[snip for brevity] >>>> >>>>> Here are a few you might look at: >>>>> >>>>> R Aquilae >>>>> R Andromedae >>>>> R Arietis >>>>> R Aur >>>>> X Aur >>>>> R Boo >>>>> S Boo >>>>> U Boo* >>>>> V Boo* >>>>> V CVn** >>>>> R Cam >>>>> V Cam" >>>>> X Cam >>>>> Z Cam >>>>> R Cas* >>>>> S Cas** >>>>> t Cas** >>>>> W Cas >>>>> S Cep* >>>>> T Cep* >>>>> Omicron Ceti >>>>> R Com >>>>> R Crb*** >>>>> S Crb >>>>> V Crb >>>>> W Crb >>>>> R Cyg >>>>> S Cyg >>>>> V Cyg >>>>> W Cyg >>>>> AF Cyg*** >>>>> CH Cyg----- >>>>> Cyg---- >>>>> Chi Cyg >>>>> R Dra >>>>> R Gem >>>>> S Her* >>>>> RU Her** >>>>> SS Her >>>>> AH her >>>>> R Hya >>>>> SU Lac >>>>> X Oph >>>>> U ori >>>>> RU Peg--- >>>>> GK Per--- >>>>> R Scuti** >>>>> R Ser >>>>> V Tau >>>>> R Uma >>>>> S Uma >>>>> T Uma >>>>> CH Uma*** >>>>> S Umi >>>>> R Vul >>>>> V Vul* >>>>> >>>> >>>>What, precisely, are we looking for again? All these are are >>>>luminosity vs. time curves, AFAICT. >>> >>> that is correct Ghost...and they are exactly the types of >>> curves predicted by the ballistic theory. (not the ones with ----) >> >>Ah yes. Now how about curves for more exotic objects? >> >>Highspeed X-ray-generating orbital binaries, for example? > > No problems Ghost. Fine. Predict the light curve of PSR1913+16, then. Assume the following parameters: [1] Dual stars, 1.4 solar masses each (2.78 * 10^30 kg). [2] Orbital period 7.75 hours. [3] Periastron 7.65 * 10^8 m; apastron 3.34 * 10^9 m. [4] Orbital inclination 45 degrees to line-of-sight. [5] Periastron is perpendicular to line-of-sight. For extra credit compute the orbit advance per year. [.sigsnip] -- #191, ewill3(a)earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless.
From: Henri Wilson on 21 Apr 2005 23:08 On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 02:00:02 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote: >In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson) ><H@> > wrote >>> >>>So who says it does? >> >> YOU PEOPLE. YOU SAY IT IS TRAVELING AT C WRT EVERY >> OTHER OBJECT IN TYHE UNIVERSE. >> >> YOU MUST BE RAVING MAD!!! > >Then the Universe is, too. > >Here's the mathematical proof. Assume a 2-D universe >for simplicity, and define the equation > >X_O^2 - c^2 * T_O^2 = 0. > >This is the usual light cone. > >What can we deduce regarding X_A^2 - c^2 * t_A^2 ? > >Well, since > >X_A = (X_O - v * T_O) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) = (X_O - v * T_O) * g >T_A = (T_O - v * X_O/c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) = (T_O - v * X_O/c^2) * g > >we can happily (?) grind away: > >X_A^2 - c^2 * t_A^2 >= (X_O - v * T_O)^2 * g^2 - c*2 * (T_O - v * X_O/c^2)^2 * g^2 >= g^2 * ((X_O - v * T_O)^2 - (T_O*c - v * X_O/c)^2 ) >= g^2 * (X_O^2 + v^2 * T_O^2 - 2 * v * X_O * T_O > - c^2 * T_O^2 - v^2 * X_O^2 / c^2 + 2 * v * T_O * X_O) >= g^2 * (X_O^2 + v^2 * T_O^2 - c^2 * T_O^2 - v^2 * X_O^2/c^2) >= g^2 * (X_O^2 - c^2 * T_O^2 - (v^2/c^2) * (X_O^2 - c^2 * T_O^2) ) >= g^2 * (0 - (v^2/c^2) * 0) >= 0 Ghost, here you go again using a circular maths argument. The factor gamma is derived from the postulate that c is constant for all observers. You then use it in a series of equations to show that light speed is constant for all observers. Do you think I'm stupid or something? Why don't you try answering the physics? > > >> >>> >>>> >>>> What was Einstein's first postulate again? >>> >>>That lightspeed has only one speed: c, >>>no matter who measures it, or how it's measured. >> >> No Ghost, learn your SR. >> That's the second postulate. > >In that case the first postulate was that all physical >laws consistently apply everywhere, without change. > >That is, if my memory is correct. Correct. So if a light pulse has a singular speed in one frame it has a singular speed in any other frame (not necessarily the same speed) > >> >>> >>>SR twists time and space (through the Lorentz) to achieve this feat, >>>and it's a strange twisting to those unused thereto -- but it >>>is a consistent one. >> >> Time and space cannot be twisted by any stupid circular maths theory. > >You are correct. The theory merely tries to explain >what is happening; math by itself does nothing interesting. > >And neither is the Universe trying to confuse you. :-) >It just is. Ghost, the universe becomes pretty 'twisted' when you assume that the Earth is its centre, too. >>>SR predicts similar results so don't worry overly much about it. >> >> Ghost, you are showing your ignorance. Even Paul Andersen agrees that a >> vertical beam remains vertical in all frames. > >A vertical beam of what? Laser light or a beam of timber...makes no difference. Shine a vertical beam through a vertical pipe. Does the pipe appear diagonal in a moving frame? No! > >> >> see my programs: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/vertical.exe >> and: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/movingframe.exe You didn't did you Ghost... You are afraid of truth. >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>Let (x_O,y_O,z_O,t_O) be in space O, where >>>>>x_O^2+y_O^2+z_O^2-c^2*t_O^2 = 0. >>>>>Basically, this is a hypercone conic surface (or a lightcone surface, >>>>>if one prefers). An alternative interpretation is that it's >>>>>the locus of a photon which originated at the origin. >>>>> >>>>>The Lorentz transformation between coordinate systems A and O >>>>>is of course >>>>> >>>>>x_A = (x_O - v * t_O) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) >>>>>y_A = y_O >>>>>z_A = z_O >>>>>t_A = (t_O - v * x_O/c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) >>>>> >>>>>It turns out that, if >>>>> >>>>>x_O^2+y_O^2+z_O^2-c^2*t_O^2 = 0, then >>>>>x_A^2+y_A^2+z_A^2-c^2*t_A^2 = 0 as well. >>>>> >>>>>I'd have to find my post proving the above but it's not >>>>>that difficult to prove, mathematically. The corollary, >>>>>of course, is that lightspeed under this transform is >>>>>c everywhere. Is the Universe required to be Euclidean? :-) >>>> >>>> You are merely using circular maths. >>> >>>Perhaps. They are, at least, consistent. >> >> Circular maths is always consistent. >> What does that prove? > >Nothing. Did you have an experiment in mind that would >prove BaT? Yes. You know that. You lso know tat variable star brightness curves are typical of those predicted by the BaT. You also must know that the dead constant periods of these curves could only be associated with star orbit periods. > >I do like your triple-probe, though I don't see much point. You mean you are afriad of the answer. >>>I said *suggest*. There *is no proof* that lightspeed is >>>c everywhere -- merely suggestions. Very strong suggestions, >>>though. >> >> Where? >> I have never seen any. > >Ah yes. So OK...where's the nullpoint of the Universe, then? >Can you and kenseto agree on an experimental method to find it? You big bang believers are hypocrites. If there WAS a BB, then its origin defines a centre about which all vector momentum must add to zero. .....But there wasn't a BB so don't lose any sleep. > >>>That's about what it would cost to launch two (or maybe several) >>>spaceprobes with well-characterized repeaters. >> >> It would cost very little if done in conjunction with other experiments. >> >> I'm sure the Chinese or Ruskies will perform this type >> of experiment soon. I don't doubt they watch NGs like >> this for good ideas like mine. > >If nothing else the experiment, done correctly, will refine >the accuracy of SR/GR, though again I see not much point; IOf any aspect of SR/GR is shown to be correct, then we should start looking for an absolute rest frame..becasue that's what relativity requires. >Gravity Probe B in particular should be better at it. > >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>[snip for brevity] >>>>> >>>>>> Here are a few you might look at: >>>>>> >>>>>> R Aquilae >>>>>> R Andromedae >>>>>> R Arietis >>>>>> R Aur >>>>>> X Aur >>>>>> R Boo >>>>>> S Boo >>>>>> U Boo* >>>>>> V Boo* >>>>>> V CVn** >>>>>> R Cam >>>>>> V Cam" >>>>>> X Cam >>>>>> Z Cam >>>>>> R Cas* >>>>>> S Cas** >>>>>> t Cas** >>>>>> W Cas >>>>>> S Cep* >>>>>> T Cep* >>>>>> Omicron Ceti >>>>>> R Com >>>>>> R Crb*** >>>>>> S Crb >>>>>> V Crb >>>>>> W Crb >>>>>> R Cyg >>>>>> S Cyg >>>>>> V Cyg >>>>>> W Cyg >>>>>> AF Cyg*** >>>>>> CH Cyg----- >>>>>> Cyg---- >>>>>> Chi Cyg >>>>>> R Dra >>>>>> R Gem >>>>>> S Her* >>>>>> RU Her** >>>>>> SS Her >>>>>> AH her >>>>>> R Hya >>>>>> SU Lac >>>>>> X Oph >>>>>> U ori >>>>>> RU Peg--- >>>>>> GK Per--- >>>>>> R Scuti** >>>>>> R Ser >>>>>> V Tau >>>>>> R Uma >>>>>> S Uma >>>>>> T Uma >>>>>> CH Uma*** >>>>>> S Umi >>>>>> R Vul >>>>>> V Vul* >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>What, precisely, are we looking for again? All these are are >>>>>luminosity vs. time curves, AFAICT. >>>> >>>> that is correct Ghost...and they are exactly the types of >>>> curves predicted by the ballistic theory. (not the ones with ----) >>> >>>Ah yes. Now how about curves for more exotic objects? >>> >>>Highspeed X-ray-generating orbital binaries, for example? >> >> No problems Ghost. > >Fine. Predict the light curve of PSR1913+16, then. >Assume the following parameters: > >[1] Dual stars, 1.4 solar masses each (2.78 * 10^30 kg). >[2] Orbital period 7.75 hours. >[3] Periastron 7.65 * 10^8 m; apastron 3.34 * 10^9 m. >[4] Orbital inclination 45 degrees to line-of-sight. >[5] Periastron is perpendicular to line-of-sight. One day. > >For extra credit compute the orbit advance per year. What factors might influence an orbit's advance? > >[.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: The Ghost In The Machine on 22 Apr 2005 03:00 In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson) <H@> wrote on Fri, 22 Apr 2005 03:08:43 GMT <ippg61thleq6fqll75khrfponkecu6a8rn(a)4ax.com>: > On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 02:00:02 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine > <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote: > >>In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson) >><H@> >> wrote > >>>> >>>>So who says it does? >>> >>> YOU PEOPLE. YOU SAY IT IS TRAVELING AT C WRT EVERY >>> OTHER OBJECT IN TYHE UNIVERSE. >>> >>> YOU MUST BE RAVING MAD!!! >> >>Then the Universe is, too. >> >>Here's the mathematical proof. Assume a 2-D universe >>for simplicity, and define the equation >> >>X_O^2 - c^2 * T_O^2 = 0. >> >>This is the usual light cone. >> >>What can we deduce regarding X_A^2 - c^2 * t_A^2 ? >> >>Well, since >> >>X_A = (X_O - v * T_O) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) = (X_O - v * T_O) * g >>T_A = (T_O - v * X_O/c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) = (T_O - v * X_O/c^2) * g >> >>we can happily (?) grind away: >> >>X_A^2 - c^2 * t_A^2 >>= (X_O - v * T_O)^2 * g^2 - c*2 * (T_O - v * X_O/c^2)^2 * g^2 >>= g^2 * ((X_O - v * T_O)^2 - (T_O*c - v * X_O/c)^2 ) >>= g^2 * (X_O^2 + v^2 * T_O^2 - 2 * v * X_O * T_O >> - c^2 * T_O^2 - v^2 * X_O^2 / c^2 + 2 * v * T_O * X_O) >>= g^2 * (X_O^2 + v^2 * T_O^2 - c^2 * T_O^2 - v^2 * X_O^2/c^2) >>= g^2 * (X_O^2 - c^2 * T_O^2 - (v^2/c^2) * (X_O^2 - c^2 * T_O^2) ) >>= g^2 * (0 - (v^2/c^2) * 0) >>= 0 > > Ghost, here you go again using a circular maths argument. The math is self-consistent, yes. It doesn't prove much beyond the fact that it's self-consistent. This is why physical data is so important. :-) > > The factor gamma is derived from the postulate that c > is constant for all observers. Actually, c is constant for all observers *regardless of the motion of the observer relative to the lightsource*. BaT only claims c is constant relative to the source. > You then use it in a > series of equations to show that light speed is > constant for all observers. > > Do you think I'm stupid or something? > > Why don't you try answering the physics? And what physics would that be? At this point, all I have is a series of star brightness curves, imperfectly measured. I might try some curvefitting but it would take some work. > >> >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> What was Einstein's first postulate again? >>>> >>>>That lightspeed has only one speed: c, >>>>no matter who measures it, or how it's measured. >>> >>> No Ghost, learn your SR. >>> That's the second postulate. >> >>In that case the first postulate was that all physical >>laws consistently apply everywhere, without change. >> >>That is, if my memory is correct. > > Correct. So if a light pulse has a singular speed in one frame it has a > singular speed in any other frame (not necessarily the same speed) Except in SR it's assumed to be the same speed. (All theories are assumptions, although some theories make more assumptions than others. :-) ) The last measurement I'm aware of, in fact, required a change in the definition of the meter around 1983; apparently the Kr-86 standard wasn't accurate enough, and lightspeed measurements within experimental error were constant. > >> >>> >>>> >>>>SR twists time and space (through the Lorentz) to achieve this feat, >>>>and it's a strange twisting to those unused thereto -- but it >>>>is a consistent one. >>> >>> Time and space cannot be twisted by any stupid circular maths theory. >> >>You are correct. The theory merely tries to explain >>what is happening; math by itself does nothing interesting. >> >>And neither is the Universe trying to confuse you. :-) >>It just is. > > Ghost, the universe becomes pretty 'twisted' when you assume > that the Earth is its centre, too. True, and with SR/GR, at least, one need not assume that, your claims notwithstanding. > > >>>>SR predicts similar results so don't worry overly much about it. >>> >>> Ghost, you are showing your ignorance. Even Paul Andersen agrees that a >>> vertical beam remains vertical in all frames. >> >>A vertical beam of what? > > Laser light or a beam of timber...makes no difference. > > Shine a vertical beam through a vertical pipe. Does the > pipe appear diagonal in a moving frame? > No! Actually, yes. Then again, everything else is sheared, too, in a fairly consistent manner. > >> >>> >>> see my programs: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/vertical.exe >>> and: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/movingframe.exe > > You didn't did you Ghost... > You are afraid of truth. I don't run arbitrary Windows executables. If you want, post a pointer to your source code and I'll convert it to a Java applet for you. :-) > >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Let (x_O,y_O,z_O,t_O) be in space O, where >>>>>>x_O^2+y_O^2+z_O^2-c^2*t_O^2 = 0. >>>>>>Basically, this is a hypercone conic surface (or a lightcone surface, >>>>>>if one prefers). An alternative interpretation is that it's >>>>>>the locus of a photon which originated at the origin. >>>>>> >>>>>>The Lorentz transformation between coordinate systems A and O >>>>>>is of course >>>>>> >>>>>>x_A = (x_O - v * t_O) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) >>>>>>y_A = y_O >>>>>>z_A = z_O >>>>>>t_A = (t_O - v * x_O/c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) >>>>>> >>>>>>It turns out that, if >>>>>> >>>>>>x_O^2+y_O^2+z_O^2-c^2*t_O^2 = 0, then >>>>>>x_A^2+y_A^2+z_A^2-c^2*t_A^2 = 0 as well. >>>>>> >>>>>>I'd have to find my post proving the above but it's not >>>>>>that difficult to prove, mathematically. The corollary, >>>>>>of course, is that lightspeed under this transform is >>>>>>c everywhere. Is the Universe required to be Euclidean? :-) >>>>> >>>>> You are merely using circular maths. >>>> >>>>Perhaps. They are, at least, consistent. >>> >>> Circular maths is always consistent. >>> What does that prove? >> >>Nothing. Did you have an experiment in mind that would >>prove BaT? > > Yes. You know that. You lso know tat variable star > brightness curves are typical of those predicted by the BaT. Not typical. *Exactly*. To the Nth decimal place (where N is a precision selected by the user), they are precisely as predicted by the BaT...since otherwise the BaT isn't worth the electrons it is printed on. Ditto for SR, GR, and rigid-aether Newtonian. > You also must know that the dead constant periods of > these curves could only be associated with star orbit periods. > >> >>I do like your triple-probe, though I don't see much point. > > You mean you are afriad of the answer. Perhaps. But does BaT predict spacetwist? Why is Gravity Probe B up there? > > >>>>I said *suggest*. There *is no proof* that lightspeed is >>>>c everywhere -- merely suggestions. Very strong suggestions, >>>>though. >>> >>> Where? >>> I have never seen any. >> >>Ah yes. So OK...where's the nullpoint of the Universe, then? >>Can you and kenseto agree on an experimental method to find it? > > You big bang believers are hypocrites. If there WAS a BB, then its origin > defines a centre about which all vector momentum must add to zero. > > ....But there wasn't a BB so don't lose any sleep. I frankly don't know if there was a BB or not, at this point. The CMBR could conceptually be a lightcone inside an infinite Universe. Granted, I have no idea regarding the math involved but it's clear that "dark matter" is a bit speculative (though logical) and "dark energy" is even more so. Still, investigation is continuing, and I don't pretend to know subatomic physics. (I barely know QM.) > >> >>>>That's about what it would cost to launch two (or maybe several) >>>>spaceprobes with well-characterized repeaters. >>> >>> It would cost very little if done in conjunction with other experiments. >>> >>> I'm sure the Chinese or Ruskies will perform this type >>> of experiment soon. I don't doubt they watch NGs like >>> this for good ideas like mine. >> >>If nothing else the experiment, done correctly, will refine >>the accuracy of SR/GR, though again I see not much point; > > IOf any aspect of SR/GR is shown to be correct, then we > should start looking for an absolute rest frame..becasue > that's what relativity requires. An interesting hypothesis, that. Why, precisely, does SR require an absolute rest frame? How does one determine that absolute rest frame, then? > >>Gravity Probe B in particular should be better at it. >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>[snip for brevity] >>>>>> >>>>>>> Here are a few you might look at: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> R Aquilae >>>>>>> R Andromedae >>>>>>> R Arietis >>>>>>> R Aur >>>>>>> X Aur >>>>>>> R Boo >>>>>>> S Boo >>>>>>> U Boo* >>>>>>> V Boo* >>>>>>> V CVn** >>>>>>> R Cam >>>>>>> V Cam" >>>>>>> X Cam >>>>>>> Z Cam >>>>>>> R Cas* >>>>>>> S Cas** >>>>>>> t Cas** >>>>>>> W Cas >>>>>>> S Cep* >>>>>>> T Cep* >>>>>>> Omicron Ceti >>>>>>> R Com >>>>>>> R Crb*** >>>>>>> S Crb >>>>>>> V Crb >>>>>>> W Crb >>>>>>> R Cyg >>>>>>> S Cyg >>>>>>> V Cyg >>>>>>> W Cyg >>>>>>> AF Cyg*** >>>>>>> CH Cyg----- >>>>>>> Cyg---- >>>>>>> Chi Cyg >>>>>>> R Dra >>>>>>> R Gem >>>>>>> S Her* >>>>>>> RU Her** >>>>>>> SS Her >>>>>>> AH her >>>>>>> R Hya >>>>>>> SU Lac >>>>>>> X Oph >>>>>>> U ori >>>>>>> RU Peg--- >>>>>>> GK Per--- >>>>>>> R Scuti** >>>>>>> R Ser >>>>>>> V Tau >>>>>>> R Uma >>>>>>> S Uma >>>>>>> T Uma >>>>>>> CH Uma*** >>>>>>> S Umi >>>>>>> R Vul >>>>>>> V Vul* >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>What, precisely, are we looking for again? All these are are >>>>>>luminosity vs. time curves, AFAICT. >>>>> >>>>> that is correct Ghost...and they are exactly the types of >>>>> curves predicted by the ballistic theory. (not the ones with ----) >>>> >>>>Ah yes. Now how about curves for more exotic objects? >>>> >>>>Highspeed X-ray-generating orbital binaries, for example? >>> >>> No problems Ghost. >> >>Fine. Predict the light curve of PSR1913+16, then. >>Assume the following parameters: >> >>[1] Dual stars, 1.4 solar masses each (2.78 * 10^30 kg). >>[2] Orbital period 7.75 hours. >>[3] Periastron 7.65 * 10^8 m; apastron 3.34 * 10^9 m. >>[4] Orbital inclination 45 degrees to line-of-sight. >>[5] Periastron is perpendicular to line-of-sight. > > One day. I'm assuming you mean "one day I'll do the computations", as opposed to one day being some sort of variation. > >> >>For extra credit compute the orbit advance per year. > > What factors might influence an orbit's advance? You should already know. BaT should coincide perfectly with observation, as no experiments currently conducted have falsified it, and none ever will. Right? There is also an orbit degeneration as well. [.sigsnip] -- #191, ewill3(a)earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless.
From: Paul B. Andersen on 24 Apr 2005 17:17 Henri Wilson wrote: > On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 16:45:21 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" > <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: > > >>Henri Wilson wrote: >> >>>On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 10:46:00 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >>><paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >>> >>> > > >>>>>>Sagnac rings and ring lasers both falsifies the ballistic theory. >>>>>>Obviously. >>>>>> >>>>>>Paul >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>You are not being at all helpful for the purpose of this discussion. >>>> >>>>You are claiming that the fringes in a Sagnac interferometer >>>>are moving when the interferometer is rotating at a constant rate. >>>>That is wrong. >>>> >>>>So you don't know what is happening in the Sagnac experiment. >>>> >>>>I think it would be very helpful for the purpose of this >>>>discussion to know what is actually happening in the real world. >>>> >>>>But maybe you prefer your fantasy world were what >>>>actually happens surely isn't what happens? >>> >>> >>>Paul, please read the whole thread. >>>I pointed out that according to both SR and the BaT, fringes would not move >>>during constant rotation. >>> >>>I merely queried whether that was the case or or not. >> >>Henri, you wrote: >>"The pattern would remain fixed. >> And that is not what happens, surely." >> >>That's not a query, it is an assertion. >>A wrong one. > > > It was intended as a query! > > >>>It apparently is and so a >>>continuous integration must be carried out (wrt time) in order to establish >>>total rotation angle moved. >> >>OK. >>So you have realized that your assertion was wrong. >>Enough about that. > > > I was a query. I didn't know the principle so how could I make an assertion? > > >>And of course you are right when you say that >>you have to integrate the angular velocity to get >>the angle. >> >> >>>I pointed out that there are inherent inaccuracies in such a method...but the >>>use of a long fibre obviously helps. >> >>Of course there are inherent inaccuracies, >>but the integration isn't the problem, this >>is done very precisely with DSPs these days. >>The precision with which the angular velocity is >>measured is what determines the precision. >> >>And that's why ring laser gyros rather that fibre optic gyros >>are used in inertial navigational systems, they are by their >>very nature much more precise. >> >>Compare this fibre optic gyro (reference given by Dishman): >>http://www.kvh.com/pdf/DSP3000_5.04.pdf >>to this ring laser gyro: >>http://content.honeywell.com/dses/assets/datasheets/ds13_gg1320_an.pdf >> fibre optic ring laser >>Bias: +/-20deg/h ? very small by nature >>Bias stability: 1deg/h 0.0035deg/h >>Angular random walk: 0.667deg/sqr(h) 0.0035deg/sqr(h) >> >>The angular velocity of the Earth is ca. 15deg/h. This >>means that for the fibre optic laser, the rotation of >>the Earth is smaller than the precision of the gyro, even >>when the gyro is parallel to the equatorial plane. >>The ring laser gyro is several order of magnitudes more precise. >>(I suspect this is reflected in the prices!) >> >>The reason for this big difference is easy to understand. >> >>In the fibre optic gyro, the phase difference is static when >>the angular velocity is constant. This means that the phase >>difference must be compared to the phase difference when >>the gyro is not rotating. This must be remembered, it can >>not be measured while the gyro is rotating. And it will >>probably drift! >> >>The ring laser gyro is very different. >>If the phase difference is static, the gyro is not rotating. >>When the gyro is rotating, the phase difference is changing >>at a rate proportional to the angular velocity. >>If the phase difference is changing with 360deg/s, >>(equivalent to a fringe speed of one inter fringe length >>per second - only there are hardly any fringes in these >>instruments) >>then the angular velocity is (360deg/2N)/s, where N is >>the number of wavelengths around the ring. With a ring >>length of - say 25cm - and a wavelength of 0.5um we >>get that a rotation of 0.000360deg/s or 1.3deg/h will >>give a phase difference change of 360deg/s. >>Easily measurable, and the beauty of it is that this >>only depend on geometric parameters and not on >>any calibration done at some earlier time. >> >>I know that the inertial navigational systems in >>commercial and military aeroplanes all use ring lasers. > > > So what is the basic difference between a 'fibre optic' and a ring gyro? I > didn't know there was any. There is a fundamental difference between a fibre optic Sagnac ring and a ring laser gyro. I think I have told you before, and won't bother to repeat it. Look it up yourself. > >>(The maintenance manuals for the MD-80 family >>and Boeing 737 happens to occupy a couple of metres >>of my shelf.) >> >>Paul Paul
From: Henri Wilson on 24 Apr 2005 19:37
On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 23:17:48 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 16:45:21 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >> <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >> >>>then the angular velocity is (360deg/2N)/s, where N is >>>the number of wavelengths around the ring. With a ring >>>length of - say 25cm - and a wavelength of 0.5um we >>>get that a rotation of 0.000360deg/s or 1.3deg/h will >>>give a phase difference change of 360deg/s. >>>Easily measurable, and the beauty of it is that this >>>only depend on geometric parameters and not on >>>any calibration done at some earlier time. >>> >>>I know that the inertial navigational systems in >>>commercial and military aeroplanes all use ring lasers. >> >> >> So what is the basic difference between a 'fibre optic' and a ring gyro? I >> didn't know there was any. > >There is a fundamental difference between a fibre optic Sagnac ring >and a ring laser gyro. I think I have told you before, >and won't bother to repeat it. Look it up yourself. I gather you don't know. >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. |